Selected History of Early Childhood Care and Education

A glimpse into a chronological journey of the lives and ideas of educationalists that have globally influenced the field of early childhood care and education (ECCE) is a necessary step for all educators. To better understand today’s practices as well as today’s errors, misunderstandings, and reinventions, this necessary time travel will offer the reader an international perspective on the sources of multiple concepts in the field of ECCE. By being exposed to the sometimes contentious and messy field of early childhood education, educators and early childhood scholars can consider the ideas and practices that best fit their current time, context, culture, and place. Once introduced to historical ideas and principles of practice in the field of early childhood education, readers can identify the roots of core concepts that are applied today in the education of the very young. Early childhood scholars and practitioners are advocating and fighting to be more valued by policy, governments, and the society as whole, and this ages-long struggle can be supported by the strong voices of the past. The biographical writings in this article will offer the reader only a glimpse into those efforts, a peek at the extreme activism of some and fight until death of others. In the last section, Comparative Studies, the reader will discover a network of connections between ideas, philosophies, practice, and experiences of thinkers from different times and different parts of the world. This network of ideas, if studied and qualitatively summarized, will support beginner educators to crystalize their own views and form their own teaching philosophy. This article contains a General Overviews chapter and one with Academic Articles that will warm up the reader by presenting overarching images of the tumultuous history of ECCE. Next is a chapter on the International History of Early Childhood Care and Education. The article continues with a chronological succession of thinkers who have built and strengthened the foundation of education in general, and of early childhood care and education in particular. They are introduced through their own voices and then analyzed by followers and critics. The selection of thinkers is far from being comprehensive and is based on their globally arching influence. Most of the thinkers proposed change, and some implemented reforms that are still viable today. They have all lived, to a degree, a Sisyphean effort to convince a world of adults that children matter more than previously thought. These past and present practitioners and theorists had tried to convince the world that children are not unfinished human beings, but competent and complex at every age. A surprising element of the historical insight will be the contemporary feel of some ideas that date back hundreds of years.

The Concept of Generations

“Generation” is a polysynthetic concept with several meanings that captures the relation between the individual and the collective in both societal and kinship relations, the concept of the life course as individuals age, and collective existence as lived out in the company of time-based cohorts of contemporaries. Karl Mannheim, who presented himself as a sociologist of knowledge rather than history, developed the theory of generations in 1927, during a period of rapid modernization. The ascendancy of the concept today also reflects the rapidity of social change. A key example is the growing imbalance between older and younger populations in Western societies that raises issues of generational justice, especially at times when many governments have cut back public expenditures and welfare benefits. The concept of generations as originally proposed by Mannheim in his germinal essay, Mannheim 1952 (cited under General Overviews, [first translated into English in 1952]), has inspired generations of sociologists. However, the concept has been applied relatively little in empirical research. Mannheim conceived of generations as a problem for historical sociology. In his view, historical context had strong experiential effects on the formative years of a birth cohort (those who were born and grew up in the same period), effects which persist over the life course. In addition, Mannheim proposed the idea of generations as units, by which he meant the ways in which a birth or age cohort responds collectively to a set of social conditions and the ways in which each generations develops its own consciousness and sense of belonging and identity. At the same time, Mannheim was clear that generations were not subjected to the same experiences and that divisions of class and gender were significant. The concept of generations has also been the central territory of anthropology through its study of kinship relations. It is also a focus of demography in its study of populations; of psychology in its focus on the life span and child development; and of sociology in its focus on parenthood, household, and childhood. Within these disciplines and fields, there is considerable variation in the use of the term. Some researchers use it as a bridging concept; some, for example, contextualize family and kinship relations in historical context, while others focus exclusively on intergenerational relationships and processes of intergenerational transmission within families, taking little account of history. In this bibliography we will make certain broad distinctions. First, we consider the literature on the concept of historical generations and linked concepts of the life course and age. We then go on to consider the literature on families and kinship relations as they relate to intergenerational transmission in families and the sociologies of childhood and youth. We end with a section on intergenerational solidarity, fairness, and social policy. The literature includes papers with a conceptual slant, empirical research, textbooks, and works by organizations that produce relevant research.

Cultural psychology and human development

Cultural psychology is a theoretical approach that treats human beings as intimately intertwined with the surrounding social world, which is filled with meanings conveyed through signs. It is based on the axiom that cultural contexts and psychological phenomena are assumed to be mutual, inseparable, and co-constructive. This focus fits the general scientific status of all open systems, which exist only due to the continuous exchange of materials with the environment. Cultural psychology is an integrated approach to psychology rather than a separate branch, as is sometimes believed, since psychology and culture “make each other up.” This involves constructive internalization (intra-mental construction of personal meanings) and equally constructive externalization (changing the environment in the direction specified by the internal meanings). As a collaborative, multidisciplinary perspective, cultural psychology is closely linked with disciplines like anthropology, sociology, linguistics, literature, and others. Cultural psychology focuses on the study of cultural—sign-mediating—processes within the mind. A common misconception relates to the fact that the term “cultural” refers to the study of similarities and differences between various communities. Rather than focusing on static comparisons, meaning-making and dynamic organization of personal and collective reality are studied. Differences between societies are important only as illustrations of the possible patterns of human psychological variation as they emerge in a particular time-space coordinate. Thus, another important axiom is that there can be no psychology without culture. Culture is constructed by goal-oriented human actions and involves continuous thought, action, and emotion in the face of uncertainty. Thus, the centrally important feature of cultural psychology is the inclusion of personal, interpersonal, and collective processes as they make up the different layers of meaning in irreversible time. Culture is both inside a person’s mind, as a personal manifestation, and also a shared system or collective set of customs. Cultural psychologists tend to treat the person as a whole rather than as separate different domains of activity because a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to a person within context is believed to be the key to meaning. Cultural psychology attempts to bring the notion of context into the central focus in psychology and the notion of person back into ethnography, as these are believed to be constructive. Context is viewed in two ways—as inevitably and inseparably linked with the phenomenon and as external social setting (e.g., home, school) in which human activities take place. Another important feature is that “cultural psychology is inherently a developmental discipline and developmental psychology is inherently cultural” (Shwartz, et al. 2020, p. 2). All levels of culturally organized human ways of living—persons, communities, societies—are constantly developing systems.

Children’s Parliaments

A children’s parliament can be defined as a formal structure for children and young people’s participation that meets on a regular or semi-regular basis. This is a working definition, as there is no single definition of children’s parliaments universally agreed upon. Very similar structures can be called different things, such as child councils, child forums, youth councils, and youth parliaments. For this entry, resources are included that refer to these and other terms but excludes structures only at school level. This entry concentrates on resources for children and young people under the age of eighteen, following the definition of the child in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). However, there are far more resources on youth parliaments than on children’s parliaments, and youth parliaments frequently include young people below and above the age of eighteen. Thus, certain resources are included if the youth parliaments in question extend below the age of eighteen. Research evidence is illuminating but limited. Children’s parliaments can be found throughout the world, across all regions, sometimes championed by nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Ethiopia and India), while others supported by government (e.g., Finland, Ireland, Scotland, and the United States). They tend to involve older children and young people (i.e., over the age of twelve), although there are exceptions. For advocates, they are opportunities for children and young people to engage in democratic practices, influence decision-making, and develop personal skills and leadership qualities; for critics, they are tokenistic and unrepresentative structures that limit rather than further children and young people’s participation to influence decision-making collectively. The growth of children’s parliament was galvanized by the UNCRC and its participation rights. In particular, Article 12 of the UNCRC outlines children’s right “to express their views freely in all matters affecting the child,” and that these views be given “due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” Children’s parliaments are one response to ensuring children’s views are expressed and given due weight in collective decision-making.

Young Children and Inclusion

Inclusive education is the focus of many thinkers, researchers, teachers, early-childhood educators, and policymakers. It is a current concern of most Western societies. The concept of inclusive education was introduced only in the 1990s, when it replaced the previous concepts of integration and mainstreaming; however, the expressed need and advocacy for inclusion go further back in history. The enormous shift is still felt by many educational institutions. The shift means that it is not the job of the child to adapt to the typical environment, but it is the complex educational ecosystem that needs to be ready for caring, educating, and ensuring success to all children, with or without diversabilities. The necessary progression is one from considering diverse groups of children in an equalizing way, to considering them in an equitable way. Inclusive early-childhood education proposes an environment catered around the unique needs of each child within the classroom. As in many other areas of education, change needs to start early, and, yet, research about the inclusion of young and very young children is not overwhelmingly prevalent. In the 2020s, inclusive practice refers to all differences, not only the ones affecting children’s physical and mental health, including race, gender, culture, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, age, etc. If young children grow up in homes and educational environments infused with inclusion, they may become more comfortable engaging in discourses of inequality and exclusion. If their learning environment models positive and genuine relationship building with anyone around them, regardless of their difference, children will grow up being advocates for and allies of the people whom society keeps on silencing. Early inclusion is paramount. So, what hinders the universal adoption of inclusive practices in early-childhood education? Among factors that constitute barriers of inclusion, we find politics, resources, support, teacher education, parents’ and teachers’ perceptions and needs, different philosophical interpretations of the concept of early inclusion, and many others. The current studies in the field of early-childhood inclusion show that there is an acute need for knowledge, collaboration, and support. Parents, policymakers, teachers, and other decision-making adults should start giving children agency and invite them to contribute to decisions that concern their well-being. Being inclusive in early-childhood education means to have trust in the competency of all young children, to cherish difference, to cultivate a respectful learning environment, to work with heart, to welcome and build strong relationships with families of all children, to be in touch with current research in the field of inclusive education, and to see inclusion as a feeling of belonging, being valued, and being respected. Inclusion is fluid as a river, but these are the stones that should always guide its course and flow.

Children and Money

Money (usually interpreted as currency) is a cultural tool that helps organize ways in which we engage with one another. Learning what it is and how to use it are important developmental milestones. The study of children and money reflects the efforts and contributions of many researchers across several disciplines including psychology, sociology, social work, marketing, and anthropology—thus understanding how children develop their ideas about money, how these ideas change over time, and how children emerge as autonomous economic agents is an interdisciplinary endeavor. The work included in this bibliography covers topics ranging from when children come to know what money is and how to use it, to when and how children come to break into the market and recognize and follow its rules, to understanding the robustness of developmental trends across different populations of children. In this way, the work referenced below reflects both basic and applied efforts. This bibliography is organized into seven sections. The first, General Overviews on Children and Money, highlights key books on this topic that serve as good starting points when first approaching this research area. The second, Foundations of Money Understanding, centers on work examining the development of children’s basic understanding of money (e.g., what money is and how to use it). The third, Using Money: Spending and Saving, presents work examining how children come to use money in the real world and play economies (i.e., small markets created for laboratory studies). The fourth, Economic Socialization and Financial Literacy, highlights work examining the influence of early experiences on later financial health outcomes and behaviors. The fifth, Understanding Market Forces, centers on children’s understanding of economic causation (i.e., the effect market forces have on each other—for example, as demand increases, supply decreases, and price increases). The sixth, Money Cues and Decision Making, presents work documenting ways in which the presence of money influences behaviors. The seventh, Money and Culture, reports on the developmental trends across different populations of children. The purpose of this bibliography is to introduce the topic of children and money and set the stage for a deeper line of inquiry; it is in no way exhaustive. Related topics, such as children’s understanding of poverty and economic equality, are not included; these require their own bibliographies. Additionally, with few exceptions, the work included focuses on studies and experiments involving children. For that reason, exclusive examinations of parents’ ideas about children and money are largely not included. In short, use this bibliography as a starting point to a much richer exploration of this topic.

Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead (b. 1901–d. 1978), one of the 20th century’s most accomplished and controversial anthropologists, pioneered modern childhood studies. Her ethnographies and popular writings established child socialization as a centerpiece for the transmission of human culture. Mead understood human behavior as a product of complex interactions between biology and the ways in which various human cultures shaped and embellished biological inheritance beginning at birth. When Mead began her career in the 1920s, anthropology’s unique fieldwork methodology and the impending disappearance of “whole cultures” required female scientists: most small pre-literate societies in remote areas of the world would not accept male “participant observers” of women’s daily activities which, of course, included child rearing. Mead’s early 1920s and 1930s fieldwork in Samoa, New Guinea, and Bali emphasized different cultural patterns of child rearing practices and child behavior. Her controversial finding that Samoan adolescent girls moved through adolescence without turmoil initiated her fame. As a young woman cultural anthropologist specializing in child behavior, Mead both engaged and disputed established Western scientific notions of universal, “normal” developmental stages including Freud’s psychosexual stages and Piaget’s innate cognitive development models. The early Samoa and New Guinea fieldwork initiated Mead’s trademark practice of using anthropological knowledge as a social reform tool. Returning to the developed Western world with her field research, for example, she encouraged lay audiences to examine their own child rearing practices. During the 1930s and 1940s, Mead joined the “culture and personality” and “national character” schools of anthropology, two early iterations of today’s psychological anthropology. As an example, her Balinese field studies conducted with her third husband Gregory Bateson (a trained biologist and ethnographer) worked within a neo-Freudian framework emphasizing parent-child interaction and cultural influences. The Balinese field work method involving both hundreds of unstaged, but carefully photographed and filmed, parent-child interactions and accompanying detailed field notes followed her earlier use of projective testing of New Guinea children, all now recognized as innovations. In the post–World War II era Mead’s interests turned to evolutionary change but she retained her interest in youth recognizing that the children of the 1960s faced an unprecedented historical change colloquially known as the “generation gap.” Mead presciently predicted a reversal of thousands of years of generational roles: 20th-century children, she correctly foresaw, would be teaching their less experienced elders how to navigate and survive in a world of rapid social and technological change into which the young were born.

Love and Care in the Early Years

It is widely recognized that children who encounter sensitive and responsive interactions in their settings go on to demonstrate superior cognitive, linguistic, and social skills. At the same time, with mothers either choosing or having to work, young children can expect to spend more of their time in nonfamilial paid care of different kinds. Researchers have therefore increasingly become interested in the role which affective, nonrational skills and dispositions may play in professional practice and the place of concepts such as love, care, and compassion in embodied professional knowledge. Because of the age and vulnerability of the children, research and practice within early childhood education and care (ECEC) is extremely sensitive to the importance of child protection. Therefore, a key intention within commentary and discussion is to redefine the notions of “love” and “passion” within a professional context so that the sexual connotations are removed. Research into love and care in ECEC highlights the cultural bias which prevents it from being taken seriously as a professional undertaking. For example, the distinction between high-status education and low-status care is symptomatic of a Platonic legacy in which the life of the body is inferior to the life of the mind. Care is also associated with the supposedly nonintellectual, private, domestic work of women within patriarchy and stands in contrast to the public, remunerated work of men within the domain of reason and language. Research into the nature and cause of close, nurturing relationships between practitioners and children therefore often has the implicit aim of overcoming such dichotomies, demonstrating that the personal and public/political domains are interrelated and that “love” may be a necessary part of intelligent professional practice. All researchers agree that ECEC is a deeply gendered occupation in that the workforce is overwhelmingly female. This state of affairs is significant since it is therefore impossible to consider the place of love and care in this practice without also considering the rights and agency of women in the labor market. Research has therefore started to make use of feminist theories, particularly a philosophical ethic of care, to justify and champion early childhood work as a form of ethical praxis, rather than as an expression of innate female biology. With this in mind, a key concern relates to the extent to which programs for pre-service practitioners can help to cultivate professional dispositions of love and care in a gender-neutral way.

Childhood in Japan

This bibliography will introduce major sources on Japanese childhood studies, with an emphasis on sources in English. For the purposes of the current project, childhood will primarily mean the stage of life from birth to adolescence but will also depend on historical and cultural treatments of people as mature or immature, dependent or independent within Japanese society. This bibliography generally omits contemporary pediatric medical studies, studies of language acquisition in childhood, and studies of the impact of motherhood on women’s careers. However, it is worth noting that much research has been done in those areas for postwar and contemporary Japan and may be found across the major journals and citation databases for the sciences and social sciences. Historical treatments of related topics have been included in some cases because there is less research available on childhood and its place within Japanese society in earlier eras. Translations of primary sources for childhood in historical eras have been included where they are substantial, closely related to childhood, and accompanied by commentary and analysis. For the Meiji period and later, there are so many first-hand observations and memoirs that these could not be included. Secondary sources for these eras include some overviews of their primary sources, which may be helpful. Studies of childhood in China before the modern era may be relevant to traditional ideas about childhood in Japan and to early educational texts for Japanese children. For such topics, see the separate Oxford Bibliographies article Children’s Culture and Social Studies.

Melanie Klein

Melanie Klein (b. 1882–d. 1960) proposed a revolutionary way of thinking about children and child psychoanalysis that led to discoveries related to the understanding of the functioning, structure, and growth of the mind, as well as an original method for the psychoanalytic treatment of children. The creation of her play technique redefined child psychoanalysis, transformed adult psychoanalysis, and opened new areas including the psychoanalysis of psychosis, autism and borderline conditions, group analysis, and interdisciplinary studies on issues that affect the child’s world. Klein started working with children at a time when child analysis occupied a marginal position in psychoanalysis; children were considered unanalyzable, or in danger if analyzed. Klein’s freedom of thought led her to test psychoanalytic theory and method in her clinical encounters with children, resulting in her concept of the child as a unique object of psychoanalytic treatment and investigation. Her radically original approach to child analysis facilitated the study and treatment of the earliest and deepest functioning of the psyche. The infant was conceived of as born with its objects and with an ego from birth, equipping the infant with the capacity to relate, to love, and to hate the other, to differentiate between me and not-me, inside and outside, and to phantasize. Klein’s theory of the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions is a theory on changes in the link between the ego and its objects and ensuing anxieties. The task in development is to master this related anxiety and transform it into language and thought, this occurring in the context of the relationship with the mother/other/analyst. Klein took children extremely seriously. Her child clinical material offers vivid descriptions of the child’s mind and the contact she made with challenging young patients. Klein had an obvious passion for clinical work and curiosity about the child’s unconscious discourse, her intuition, and capacity for observation. Available for the child, playing out the roles attributed to her, adhering to phantasy, receiving positive and negative transferences, intuitively registering anxiety and interpreting it: Klein gives meaning to the child’s experience. The main focus of this article is on the relevance of Kleinian discourse for the study of the child and the thinking on the needs of and dangers affecting children in the 21st century.