Category: Free Essays

He is experiencing many different changes in his body that are influencing his development during the early adolescent stage. This stage can be one of the most challenging times in a child’s life. Biologically, Luz is developing at a healthy rate of growth, which means he experiencing rapid spurts of growth in height and weight. This begins in boys around age twelve, along with other biological changes such as puberty (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010).

Psychological Influences

Luz is experiencing psychological challenges that an indicator of emotional unrest and instability. He has become withdrawn from the other kids and non-interactive in class. The Adolescent years are characterized by cognitive development and information processing. Luz’s mental actions during this development phase is has developed into a formal operational patterns. This age is governed by global evaluation of one’s self, which has caused Luz to evaluate himself in relation to his peers. Adolescents gain new levels of awareness of themselves, and others as they mature and develop cognitive growth (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010). Luz’s shyness is a way to avoid rejection among his peers because he has become increasingly self-conscious to how he may appear to others. Luz sees himself differently from the other kids, and his weak self concept is psychologically damaging to his academic achievements. Although Luz is a bright child and has always done well in school, his grades have fallen due to the psychological issues he is undergoing in his adolescent development.

Social influences

In the middle childhood stage of development, children prefer to spend more time with their peer groups in more formal social gatherings. At this age there are distinct roles that govern the children through rigid social rules. Children learn to regulate their emotions to fit into specifics group and to avoid rejection (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010). Luz, however is not able to join these social groups due to his family’s financial situation and has not been able to participate in after school programs that could enhance his social acceptance. His social groups are confined to his brothers and grandparents in the afternoon. This has been extremely damaging to Luz on different levels. When Luz is put under the care of the older brothers, it can cause conflict between them, because they may not want to take this responsibility at their ages. When put under the care of his grandparents, it can cause him to feel as though he is being treated like a “baby.” Luz’s conflicting feelings, without an adequate social group, has caused him to feel insecure and to turn his negative feelings inward and made him withdrawn.

Cultural influences

Luz’s cultural background plays a vital role in his integration into social settings. Because Luz’s father and mother come from immigrant families, Luz has been raised by a distinct set of values and traditions from other countries. Since Luz’s mother emigrated from Mexico as a small child with her parents, her culture is most likely deeply rooted in the family microsystem. Although, Luz’s father’s family emigrated from Columbia, he was born in the United States and therefore may have integrated more to the surrounding culture. Every culture has rules for rearing children, some view leaving a thirteen year old unattended as inappropriate (Rogoff, 2003). Luz’s culture obviously holds to this view. This is contrary to American culture where children are left alone for long periods from early ages (Cole & Rodman, 1987). This difference may be a catalyst for Luz’s inferiority issues. He may not feel trusted, causing him to feel as though he is incapable of caring properly for himself, decreasing his confidence, and causing him to withdraw from the other kids at school.

Jose Gonzalez, Later Adolescence Developmental Stage – 19 years of age
Biological Influences

Jose is a healthy young adult male. He is at the peak of his physical development at nineteen years old, as body performance is the strongest during the early 20s (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010). This feeling of maximum physical potential has empowered Jose to assert his rights against his parent’s wishes and make harmful decisions for his future economic earnings.

Psychological influences

As an emerging adult, Jose is experiencing identity confusion (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010). Jose dropped out of school in tenth grade against the wishes of his parents and has been unable to transition to an adult lifestyle as defined through social and economic factors (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010). He is now nineteen and still has no positive career choices available, working only in low wages positions for short periods of time. Studies show that students from racial-ethnic minority groups have a higher dropout rate. It is also, known that students from lower socioeconomic environments have a higher dropout rate (McNeal Jr., 1995). The psychological connection between the Jose’s having to drop out of sports was likely a strong factor in his decision to drop out of school. Jose was a star athlete in school and most likely had dreams of playing professional sports. These kinds of dreams are instrumental in the psychological growth of a later adolescent development. According to Levinson, dreams give focus and high self-worth even if the dreams begin unrealistically (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010). Jose’s spirit was crushed and because of this, he exhibited poor decision making. Jose is making an effort to become independent from his parents yet psychologically this has been a problem, because he is still financially and emotionally dependent upon them. This kind of dependency can lead to problems developing intimate relationships with women (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010).

Social Influences

Jose is working to become independent in his later adolescent development years. He is in the process of coming to terms with his identity as an emerging young adult. He asserted his right to independence when he defied his parents and dropped out of school. This is common behavior for later adolescents, it is the time that young adults focus on strengthening their inner identity, and clarifies their values separate from their parents for the purpose of developing intimacy with others. During this stage of development, intimacy becomes a primary issue in their life. Later Adolescents begin to become concerned about commitment issues and career choices that will help them establish goals for a future family (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010). Jose continued loss of low wages jobs has disrupted his development maturity and has been a social handicap, because he has not been able to build long term work relationships.

Cultural Influences

Jose’s decisions are a result of his family’s culture. Although Jose’s father graduated from high school, his mother did not. In the Latino culture, a high school diploma is not as valued among its people, however in the United States, high school graduation among Latino students, has risen ten percent in ten years. The national rate is now seventy eight percent of Latinos students will graduate from high school (Garcia, 2013). Therefore it can be assumed that Jose’s decision was dependent more upon his own family’s culture than the American Latino culture which is in changing around him. Other cultural influences that are prevalent, is the historic system of Latino family’s dependence upon each other for support. Jose most likely feels responsible to help out with the household expenses since his family is struggling to make ends meet. The Latino culture is strongly enriched the philosophy that family members should help each other in any way possible (Osher et al., 2011).

Luz and Jose Gonzalez’s strengths

Luz and Jose both have strengths they should focus on to increase their developmental processes.

Jose is the oldest of three sons, has a sense of strong family values. He has gone to work to lighten the load off his financially struggling parents and is available to take care of the younger siblings when possible. He is sacrificial and supportive and should be commended because these are self-less character traits that are honorable in all cultures and are strengths for a healthy development into adulthood. He is young and physically fit and capable of doing many different jobs. He has had many different employment experiences and has been able to eliminate specific areas that he is not interested in for a career.

Luz is the youngest of the three brothers, and has a great deal of support from his older siblings. He is very intelligent and has potential to graduate with honors and gain scholarships to go to college. He is self- reflective and never disruptive in school. Hector is in good health and growing physically at a reasonable rate in proportion to his peers.

Luz and Jose Gonzalez’s Weaknesses

Jose being the oldest feels an undue amount of responsibility for his age, causing him to feel stress and anxiety in a difficult economic family situation. The largest hazard to Jose’s healthy development is the fact that he dropped out of high school. This limits his ability to find adequate employment (Garcia, 2013).

Luz’s position in the family can be noted as a hazard in the family structure, as younger children often emulate behavior of the older and his older siblings have and are making poor choices (Bank & Kahn, 2003). He also has more people seeking to control his behavior, which can lead to frustration and intimidation. He has become withdrawn, exhibiting insecurities and dissatisfaction with himself. He is at an age where belonging to social groups is vital, and he has no outlet to participate, due to his family’s financial situation. His grades are also falling due to his lack of interest in school and growing emotional instability. Immediate intervention is necessary for the healthy development of Luz to the next stage of growth.

Inferred family background or current family functioning Influences
Marital issues

Jorge and Maria are in a deeply stressful financial situation, these types of pressures often cause problems in marriages. Many couples site financial problems as the reason they divorced (Wolcott & Hughes, 1999). Both partners are tired from long hours of work. Maria works at a low wage job with no health insurance or retirement benefits, causing a great deal of insecurity for the health of their family. They struggled to get Hector glasses and he needs medication for his recently diagnosed ADD but there are no resources. The parents were forced to have their son stop playing sports because of the cost, instilling guilt and feelings of failure. There may also be some residual effects from previous years that Jorge did not have a steady job. It is important for the social worker to explore these issues to verify that there are no marital conflicts that should be resolved for the good of the adhesiveness of the family structure.

Parenting issues

Jorge and Maria Gonzalez have been married for twenty years with similar cultures but also very different experiences. They both have strong ideas about what is best for their children and there have been conflict within the family when Jose went against their wishes and quit school. This is an indicator that Jorge and Maria need to improve their parenting skills. Although they did not want their son to quit school they obviously gave into his demands, because it would require the parent’s signature. Jorge and Maria should have explored the deeper reasons for why Jose wanted to drop out of school. They also should learn skills to help their other sons learn to cope with the stresses they feel at school before they follow in their older brother’s footsteps, through motivational techniques. Both parents should determine to affirm their children while demonstrating power and authority (Ashford & LeCroy, 2010).

In-law issues

The Gonzalez family is a close operating unit and there is no doubt that each member is highly dependent upon the others, whether financially or emotionally Maria may be very dependent upon her extended family more than she should, relying upon them almost daily. In-law issues can be a cause of a great deal of conflict with a home. There should be clear boundaries set in place.

Formal Organizations that can help the Gonzalez family

The purpose of this research project is to investigate whether gender stereotypes existing in todays society affects childrens choices in play. The research will focus mainly on children around the ages of 2 – 3 years as this is when gender identity and the adopting of gender specific behaviour begins to show (Hughes, 2010). For many years society has been full of gender stereotypes and children have regularly learnt to adopt to gender specific roles as a result of this (REF). The research will also explore whether bringing children up in their set genders will have any effects on their later development.

Aims and objectives

The aim of this research is to discover whether gender stereotyping has an effect on the choices children make in their play, particularly looking at toy selection and areas the children gather in, in an early years setting. A discussion of how gender identity is formed and as to how gender roles are learnt and adopted by children will be a main focus in this study. The research will also explore how children being steered towards playing and behaving gender specific can hinder their development and what practitioners can do to avoid this.

Rationale

Past research that I have done has widened my understandings of how many children in settings adopt gender specific behaviour, for example not to cry if you’re a boy and to be innocent and pretty if you’re a girl. After doing placement in an early years setting and experiencing children playing in traditional ways for example boys with cars and girls steered towards playing with dolls and dressing up, I am extremely interested in finding out why children play in this way and as to what kind of an effect playing to a specific gender can have on children’s later/overall development. Although many of us believe in giving children as many opportunities and policy is in place to make sure this happens we still subconsciously treat boys and girls differently (REF). Therefore gender stereotyping appears to create many barriers to children receiving all the opportunities to play equal and personally I believe that this will have significant effects on their later life choices.

Research Questions

I will centre my research around these four main research areas:

How do children develop gender role behaviour?
What is the policy context around equality for girls and boys?
Does gender stereotyping hinder children’s overall development?
How can practitioners support inclusive practice for both sexes in the early years setting?
2. Literature Review 1,500

There has been extensive research carried out on gender stereotyping in children and many ideas have been formed as to how children develop gender specific roles. However before we begin looking into this topic it is fundamental that we define what is meant by gender.

How do children develop a gender role behaviour

There are many ways in which it is said children learn and adopt gender specific roles such as, paretns, peers, media, literature and practitioner interaction.. ‘there is much discussion on whether it is nature or nurture side’. According to Yellend (1998), gender development is a systematic process beginning at birth and frequently reshaped thoughtout life depending on the sex of the child.

There are many studies which have been carried out with the social learning perspective in mind which propose that parents contribute to sex-typed behaviours in children and are a great influence to shaping their child’s sex role development (Golombok, 2004). This is done through the different types of toys they buy and the way in which they respond to their children for example a positive response would be given to a girl playing with domestic type toys and likewise a boy playing with cars (Bee, Boyd, 2010).

Socialisation – Parents are key to gender roles as imitation is a vital part of young children’s lives and they learn many things through imitation especially around the ages of 2 – 3 years( REF) it has been said that children learn their gender roles by coping their same sex parent e.g. girl watching her mum do the cooking will then maybe assume that that is a role to be carried out by the female. Family are key when it comes to toy selection as they are generally the first people who buy for their children/grandsonsaˆ¦aˆ¦adults selection of toys for their children/grandson are likely to be gender specific as society is so full of stereotypes we automatically separate boys and girls toys as it has become a subconscious motive?

Many magazines will have toys under ‘toys for girls’ and toys for boys’ having product such as dolls for girls and trucks, cars..for boys

Peers can then continue the already existent believes children have about what should be played with if a girl or boy.

Interaction with practitioners also contributes, use words such as pretty, boys discouraged from crying (touch gender).

What is the policy context around equality for girls and boys?
The equality act 2012
EYFS/ECM will have wrote something on opportunism
Each setting will incorporate many policies within their setting
The Early Years Foundation Stage, unique child states that children ‘inclusive practice’.
Does gender stereotyping hinder children’s overall development?
Does gender stereotyping have an effect on childrens academic achievents and later career choices?

It is likely that traditional gender roles (stereotypes) will continue to limit both boys and girls academic opportunities – little girls discouraged from leaderships tasks, and maths steered towards nurturing roles

“persistent adult beliefs about ‘typical’ behaviour for boys or girls affect children’s experiences” (Lindon, 2012, pg. 7).

The ways in which children careers choices are relayed to children can be subtle but consistent, sending a clear message about the academic domains in which girls and boys are supposed to excel, for example giels are steered away from maths.

Can be shown through the later academic achievements of children eg, girls do better in english?

How can practitioners support inclusive practice for both sexes in the early years setting

It is important that children receive as many opportunites as possible in the early years

Hard cause we are so used to it we do it subconsciously

Follow policy

Gender neutral environment

Challenging stereotypical thoughts within your setting. If a boy tells a girl she can’t be a doctor, ask him why, and show him pictures of female doctors. If a girl tells a boy he can’t be a ballet dancer have resources to hand that show a different story

Role play is a great way to show gender equality

Showing pictures of women firefighters, women builders etc.

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample

The sample type I have chosen is a convenience sample, which refers to the “collection of information from members of the population who are conveniently available to provide it” (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010, pg.276). Therefore I have chosen to interview practitioners in early years settings in the Northumberland area, I have chosen this area as firstly I know the area which means I will save on time as I won’t have to find my way around a new place and secondly I have visited these settings before meaning they are easy accessible.

3.2 Research method – Interviews

I have chosen to use face to face interviews for my research. Interviews are a method whereby one person asks questions of an individual with the expectation of getting answers to a particular question (Mukherji & Albon, 2010). Interviews are the best suited method for my research due to the in depth collection of data, allowing for exploration of issues (O’Leary, 2010). I will be carrying out a semi structured interviews meaning I will be able to explore around the topic and not just collect responses to set questions. Interviews are a research method that provides us with qualitative data (REF). I have chosen a method that collects qualitative data rather than quantitative as the topic I have chosen to research requires in depth understandings and practitioners opinions and not just simple yes and no responses.

3.2(iii) Semi-structured approach

There are many types of interviews however I have chosen to use semi structured interviews, often called a ‘conversation with a purpose’ (REF). Semi structured interviews are where the interviewer has a checklist of topics and questions to explore however the way in which these are explored will vary dependant on the flow of conversation with each individual (Holmes, 2005). By using this type of interview I will be able to explore around the topic as there will be area for on the spot questions.

The role of the interviewer is important to know to conduct an effective piece of research. The interviewer will probe the interviewee however will know when they need to be quiet (REF). The interviewer knows the areas he or she wants to cover with the interviewee, but allows the interviewee the options to take different paths and explore different thoughts and feelings.

All interviews will be recorded and transcribed verbatim and this will contribute to the reliability of the research (Royse, 2008). After having transcribing the data I will analyse the data through content or discourse.

3.2(i) Advantages of method

Interviews are an excellent qualitative research method meaning they allow for in depth rich data to be collected about key themes (REF). One to one interviews allow for a rapport to be developed between the interviewer and the interviewee (Matthews & Ross, 2010). This could potentially lead to more information being expressed as the participant is likely to feel comfortable and therefore this gives reliable/valid data.

Face to face interviews have traditionally been seen as the most effective method in regards to the response rate (Vaus, 2002 aˆ¦) The response rate is always achieved as interviews are scheduled meaning answers are gurantueed

Another advantage of using interviews is the way in which the interviewer is able to observe the interviewees facial expressions and body language which in turn will give the interviewer a clearer indication of the interviewees true feelings. This will add to the validity of the research.

3.2(ii) Disadvantages of method

Although there are many advantages of using the research method interviews there are also many disadvantages. Firstly interviews are time consuming, scheduling the interview, conducting the interview, and transcribing recordings takes up a lot of time (May, 2011). Secondly the interviewers presence can have a great deal of an effect on the participant, factors such as tone of voice, the way a question may be rephrased, voicing an opinion, inadequate note taking, even the gender and appearance of the interviewer may lead to errors and bias (Fontana & Frey, 2000).

Thirdly achieving reliability is challenging because each interview is unique in some way (Conway,Jako & Goodman, 1995). This can be because there are differences between the way each interview is conducted, difference in the way questions are asked due to there not being standardised responses, and the data collected.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (2000) ‘The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text’ iin N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Reasearch. 2nd ed. London: SAGE

Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. (1995). A meta- analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565-579.

4 Ethical considerations

Before carrying out any research it is crucial that ethical considerations are taken into account (May, 2011). Informed consent is essential, and should ensure that the participants are fully informed prior to participation and are aware that their involvement is completely voluntary (McLaughlin, 2007). Therefore in advance to carrying out the research it is vital that I receive informed consent from all participants, this will be achieved by obtaining a signed consent form from each participant (See Appendix). It is fundamental that participants know who is doing the research, the aims and objectives, what is being asked of them, how the data will be used and what steps will be taken to ensure confidentiality (Walliman, 2011). Another ethical consideration to consider is confidentiality, thus meaning we are obliged to protect the participant’s identity (Silverman, 2011). Information will be treated with respect and the participants would remain anonymous; both of which are extremely important to the ethics base (Hobart, Frankel, 2004, GSCC, 2002) Therefore all participants’ names will be changed so as to protect them; participants will be informed of this.

All participants have the right to withdraw themselves and their results fromthe research.

Interviews will be recorded so that they can be transcribed, this means the data will be kept for some time (Matthews & Ross, 2010) therefore it is important that this data is klept in a secure place. (data protection)

Beneficence is another ethical issue that will be key in this study. Beneficence relates to the

Non – maleficence, the principle of’ not doing harm’aˆ¦must be applied to all participants

Although my research would have benefited from me carrying out observations of children in their early year’s environment unfortunately due to the University ethics statement I am prohibited from doing this and therefore unable to observe children in their environment as part of my research.

Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach

Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie

5, illustrated

John Wiley & Sons, 2010

Surveys in Social Research

Social Research Today Series

Research methods/Sociology

David A. De Vaus

5, illustrated, reprint

Routledge, 2002

The focus of this research was gendered toys and the perceptions children and their parents hold about these types of toys, it aimed to investigate childrens reasoning about gendered toys and looked to establish if a link exists between the perceptions of parents and the toy preferences of children. Gendered toys can be described as being toys which are generally thought of as being suitable for one gender over the other, for example wheeled toys for males and dolls for females (Pleil and Williams, 2008; Francis, 2010). Throughout this research the term gender typical toys will be used to describe toys which are traditionally considered most appropriate for the sex choosing them, the term gender atypical is used to describe toys traditionally thought of as being suitable for a child of the opposite gender to the sex of the child selecting them. This subject is especially significant today, as it appears that the manufacturing and marketing of toys is more gender stereotyped now than previously; with the vast majority of toy stores having aisles, or even entire floors dedicated to a specific gender (Francis, 2010). Therefore, today’s children are being exposed to gender stereotyped toys to a greater degree than their counterparts would have been in the past (Francis, 2010).

Looking at research which sought parent’s experiences of what toys their children preferred has demonstrated that young children vary vastly when it comes to their choice of toys and that they have very clear opinions of what toys are most suited to each gender (Pleil and Williams, 2008). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that children develop mental schemas of objects, which are gender stereotyped from a very young age (Ruble, Martin and Berenbaum, 2006). The gender stereotypes and gender stereotypical behaviour that forms during early childhood are an interesting and important issue, as it has been established that these gender notions can influence a child’s career choices as adults (Cherney and Dempsey, 2010; Francis, 2010). Furthermore, toy choice in itself is an important issue research has shown that toys teach children vital life skills, however, these skills vary depending on which gender the toy is stereotypically aimed at (Fagot and Leinbach, 1983; Francis, 2010). It has been argued that the toys stereotypically aimed each gender foster totally different social and cognitive skills, with boys toys developing problem-solving skills whilst girls toys develop nurturing and caring skills (Cherney and London, 2006; Francis, 2010). Therefore, the toys children play with, along with children’s gender stereotypical views of them are important and valid issues to research as the impact is long term and has implications in adulthood.

There are several theoretical perspectives on how children come to acquire gender stereotypes and gendered behaviours. The social cognitive theory of gender development postulates that children learn gender norms and gendered behaviours through observing their environment and the people within it; children observe the behaviours of people in their environment and replicate them. Gendered behaviours are reinforced through the reward and punishment of behaviour, considered appropriate or inappropriate by others that the child experiences (Bussey and Bandura, 1999). Therefore, according to this standpoint the concept of gender and the acquisition of gendered behaviour is a socially constructed phenomenon. However, research conducted on Verve and Rhesus monkeys has established that young primates display the same gendered behaviours observed in their human counterparts (Alexander and Hines, 2002; Hassett, Siebert and Wallen 2008). This research suggests that gender stereotypical toy preferences may be a reflection of the biological differences between males and females rather than being a direct result of socialisation (Pleil and Williams, 2008). Therefore, according to this standpoint gendered behaviour is as a result of biological differences between the sexes. Despite this evidence, suggesting that children may be biologically predisposed to being gender stereotypical in their toy preferences, this paper is underpinned by the hypothesis that children’s social interactions, especially with their parents, are influential on their perception and choice when it comes to toys.

The overarching approach of this research was a case study, employing document analysis, questionnaire and interview techniques of data collection. The central research question for this study was “How do children and their parents perceive and reason about gendered toys and what, if any, connection exists between these perceptions in relation to children’s toy preferences”. Four aims were identified and addressed by formulating four research questions, in order to answer the central research question. These research questions were:

What are children’s toy preferences and how, if at all, are these preferences interrelated to the gender of the child?

How do children reason about their toy choice when deciding which toys they wish to play with?

What are parental perceptions of the suitability of gendered toys?

How, if at all, are parental perceptions of toys interlinked with toy choice and the reasoning behind toy choice, of children?

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Introduction

This review will examine issues relating to the perspectives held by children and parents on gendered toys. Firstly it will examine children’s toy preferences, exploring the gender dimorphic nature, which research has uncovered regarding children’s toy choices. Then the review will then explore the reasoning behind children’s toy choices, parental perspectives on the suitability of toys in relation to gender and finally the influence of parents on children’s perspective and choice.

2.1: Children’s Toy Preferences and Gender

It has been put forward that the vast majority of experiments designed to assess children’s toy preferences were not true reflections of what children would choose in real life (Down, 1983). Down (1983) argues that prior experiments were too restrictive, only offering a very limited choice between small selections of typically male or female toys, which rarely offered a gender neutral choice. In his own research Down assessed elementary school aged children’s toy preferences by utilising children’s letters to Santa Claus, allowing for an unrestricted, ecologically valid method of ascertaining children’s preferences in a real life, naturalistic way. Down found that many of the toys selected by the children were not traditionally gendered toys, rather they were toys which could be considered gender neutral; girls were found to be especially likely to request gender neutral toys whilst boys requested gender typical and gender neutral toys in equal measure. Nevertheless, Down’s research also demonstrated that boys and girls both prefer gender typical toys over gender atypical toys, a notion which has been supported through the findings of subsequence research (Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney et al, 2003).

Recent research which, like Down’s work offered a holistic insight into children’s toy preferences, was conducted by Cherney and London (2006). The child participants in this study were asked to list their favourite toys, the participants were free to choose whatever toys they wished. Considerable differences were found in the favourite toys that were chosen based on the child’s gender, replicating the previous finding of Down; both boys and girls preferred gender typical over gender atypical toys. They also discovered that whilst boy’s preferences became slightly more masculine as the child aged, that in contrast girl’s toy preference became less feminine with age.

More recently it has been discovered that even the youngest children, infants aged between 3 and 8 months, appear to show a preference for gender typical toys. Alexander, Wilcox and Woods (2009) investigated whether infants display a preference for gender typical toys, this was ascertained using eye-tracking technology to measure the time the infants spent focused on either a truck or a doll. It was found that girl infants showed a preference for the doll, whilst the boy infants spent more time focused on the truck. The research of Alexander, Wilcox and Woods, supports the notion of a biological foundation for gendered preferences of toys. The notion of a biological underpinning for children’s gender-based preferences has been highlighted through research conducted with infant monkeys (Alexander and Hines, 2002; Hassett, Siebert and Wallen 2008), as these preferences are being observed at an age before it is commonly accepted that children have established gender identity and gender typical behaviour.

However, it cannot be ignored that some of the research discussed above (Alexander and Hines, 2002; Hassett, Siebert and Wallen, 2008 and Alexander, Wilcox and Wood, 2009), is guilty of the very criticism put forward by Down (1983). These studies only offered the participants a choice between limited arrays of gendered toys with none offering participants a gender neutral option. Therefore, it could be argued that these studies do not demonstrate well-rounded picture of children’s toy preferences and therefore the validity of these findings could be called into question. Nevertheless, the findings of these studies, when considered alongside the more well-rounded research discussed above (Down, 1983; Cherney and London, 2006) clearly show that children, of both the human and primate variety, demonstrate a marked preference for gender typical over gender atypical toys, therefore providing a valid and important insight into children’s toy preference and the difference between the preferences of girls and boys.

2.2: Children’s Reasoning Regarding Toy Preference and Suitability

Through previous research, several key factors have emerged that influence a child’s reasoning about whom toys are suitable for. Several studies have found that children’s reasoning about who else would enjoy playing with a particular toy is often egocentric. It has been found that when a child likes a particular toy they often reason that other children of their own gender would also like the toy and conversely children of the opposite gender would not like it (Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney, Harper and Winter, 2006). These studies show that young children often used egocentric reasoning when thinking about what other children would like, they conclude that what they enjoy others of their own sex would also enjoy and those of the opposite sex would not.

However, Martin, Eisenbud and Rose (1995) established that when toys are labelled as being for a certain gender, it is highly influential on children’s reasoning about who would enjoy that toy. They presented children with attractive, but unfamiliar toys and asked them to rate the toys appeal to themselves and other children, the results were concurrent with the previous research of Carter and Levy (1988), the children’s reasoning was egocentric; they concluded that what they liked other children of their gender would like. However, when they presented the children with another set of toys, applying gender labelling to them, they uncovered a very different reaction. The children used the gender labels to reason about their own and others preference for that toy, even with a very attractive toy, if it was labelled for the opposite gender the children were less favourable towards that toy and reasoned that other children of their own gender wouldn’t like it either. Therefore, this research clearly demonstrates the power of gender labels to influence children’s reasoning and preferences when choosing what toys they themselves would enjoy as well as when considering what other children would enjoy.

Another common influence on children’s gender-based reasoning uncovered by recent research conducted by Cherney and Dempsey (2010) is gender association; children would habitually reason that a toy was most suitable for a particular gender based on the gender of the toy itself. An example of this was when a swimming pool, a toy deemed to be gender neutral, was classified as being a ‘girl’s toy’ because it featured Dora the Explorer whom is herself a girl. Furthermore, this research has also identified toy colour as being another factor which influences children’s reasoning and toy preferences. Using gender ambiguous and neutral toys, this research aimed to establish how young children classify toys with less notable gender typical features, finding that colour was commonly cited as a reason for the classification of toys by gender (Cherney and Dempsey, 2010). This finding could be due to the increasing trend seen in recent years for toy manufacturers to commonly market the same toy, which is often a gender neutral toy such as a camera, in gender typical colours. With the pink option being marketed at girls and the blue version marketed at boys.

The studies outlined above demonstrate that children’s reasoning about toy preferences and suitability is influenced by a number of factors and is often egocentric. However the common thread running throughout all these studies is that outside influences, such a gender labels and colour greatly influences the toys children like. The personal, egocentric reasoning employed by children in the absence of outside influences, coupled with the change in children’s reasoning that comes with outside influences clearly shows that children are highly aware of societal and cultural ‘norms’ and it would appear that, on the whole, children tend to conform to these gender ‘norms’ when it comes to the toys they considered to be most appealing.

2.3: Parental Perceptions of Gendered Toys and Their Suitability

During the late 1970s an observational study was conducted, which investigated how parents praise and punish children’s behaviour, it was found that the types of behaviours parents praise or punish differ for boys and girls. The study discovered that boys were punished when they played with gender atypical toys and praised when they played with gender typical toys, it also found that girls were punished for rough and tumble play (Fagot, 1978). Therefore, it would seem from this research that parents have clear views on what toys and play styles are suitable for either sex and that they actively discourage their children from engaging in play or using toys traditionally stereotyped as belonging to the opposite sex. This finding was supported by later research, investigating parental participation in children’s play (Roopnarine, 1986), which discovered parents most often participated when their children were playing with toys traditionally considered appropriate for their gender. Therefore, these studies (Fagot, 1978; Roopnarine, 1986) suggest that parents, either directly through punishment or indirectly through their lack of participation, encourage their children to prefer gender typical toys and reject gender atypical ones.

However, more recently a study conducted by Wood et al (2002) investigating parental views of gender stereotyped toys found that traditional gender categorisation of toys did not reflect the parents views on toy suitability. This study found that many toys traditionally considered to be either male or female, were categorised as being gender neutral by the parents. The physical features of the toys used in this study were controlled to limit factors, such as colour, from influencing gender categorisation. Therefore, the parents must have made their decision based on something outside of the physical features of the toys; the researchers believed this could be due to a shift in recent times of the typical gender role stereotypes (Wood et al, 2002). Nevertheless, this study discovered that parents believed gendered toys to be most desirable to the gender the toy is traditionally assigned to. This research also observed parents and children at play to ascertain which toys were utilised most often by each gender. While observing boys and parents typically masculine toys were played with the most, a finding consistent with previous studies however, when observing girls and parents there was more flexibility, playing with feminine and neutral toys equally which deviates from previous studies. Therefore the shift in how parents categorised toys uncovered by this research did not reflect in their real life play situations with their children (Wood et al, 2002).

The findings of these studies (Fagot, 1978; Roopnarine, 1986) suggest that parents have differing views on what toys and activities are suitable for children based on their gender, and that they reinforce these views through their behaviour when interacting with their child. However, more recent findings (Wood et al, 2002) suggest that parents view of traditionally gender stereotyped toys is evolving and that modern parents are reinterpreting the traditional roles of gendered toys. Nevertheless, despite this shift in how parents are categorising children’s toys, Wood et al (2002) still found that parents believed stereotypically gendered toys to be most desirable to the gender typically associated to them, showing that there is still a gender division in children toys.

2.4: Parental Influence on Children’s Toy Choices and Reasoning

It has been argued by Mischel (1966) that children learn gendered behaviours prior to realising that they belong to a particular gender, this occurs through a process of modelling and reinforcement by adults. Furthermore, as previously discussed the praise and punishment delivered by parents differs depending on the sex of the child, with girls and boys both being praised for gender typical behaviour and punished for gender atypical behaviour (Fagot, 1978). These two pieces of literature suggest that children learn gender labelling and gendered behaviours through the social interactions they experience in their early lives. This standpoint on children’s acquisition of gender labels and gendered behaviour is called social learning theory and opposes the cognitive-developmental theory of children acquisition of gendered behaviours as proposed by Kohlberg (1966). The cognitive-developmental theory argues that children develop an awareness of their own gender before developing an understanding of the typical behaviour associated with each gender (Kohlberg, 1966). Through the lens of the social learning theorist gendered behaviours are viewed as being a precursor of the gender development process, whereas cognitive-developmental theorists sees gender development as being a causal factor in children acquiring gendered behaviours (Weinraub et al, 1984). Therefore from a social learning perspective parents, as young children’s primary socialiser, have a massive potential to influence the existence of gender behaviour in their child and therefore may influence the types of toys children choose to play with.

Research conducted investigating young children’s gender identity, toy choices and family characteristics has found that parents do hold an influence over their child’s toy choice (Weinraub et al, 1984). However, this influence was not universal for mothers and fathers. The study found that in the case of mothers it is their occupation, not their sex-typed personality traits, which affect children’s development of gender labelling and therefore their toy choices. On the other hand, the study found that in the case of fathers, sex-typed personality traits strongly influenced the development of gender labels in children, and their toy preferences, especially in the case of boys (Weinraub et al, 1984). However, another study conducted shortly after found that contrary to previous research suggesting fathers as being the primary force supporting the development of children learning gender labels, that mothers and fathers were equally involved (Roopnarine, 1986). The results of these studies (Weinraub et al, 1984; Roopnarine, 1986) demonstrate that parents, especially fathers of boys, can influence the gender labels that children develop, and in turn the choices children make about toys and support the hypothesis proposed by social-learning theorists.

Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1: Research Methods

The overarching research design of this research was that of the case study. This design was chosen as it enables real life participants to be examined in a real life situation, allowing for an in-depth insight into the phenomenon being investigated (Cohen et al, 2011). The phenomenon this research project examined was gendered toys; it investigated how children and their parents perceive and reason about such toys and aimed to establish whether there is a link between the perceptions of parents and the preferences of children. A further benefit of the case study approach is that it allows findings to be presented in a clear and concise manner, enabling the reader to have a clearer understanding of the ideas being presented (Cohen et al, 2011).

Case studies have been defined as being the study of a single instance within a bounded system, for example a school, class, community (Adelman et al, 1980; Creswell, 1994 cited in Cohen et al, 2011). However, it has been put forward that such a tight definition is not an appropriate definition of the case study approach. Yin (2009) argues that the line between the phenomenon being investigated and the context where it is being investigating is not clear-cut; therefore it is important contextualise case studies by employing strategies such as rich descriptions and details. Nevertheless, this case study did investigate a phenomenon within a bounded system, focusing on families from within a community whose children all attend the same school. The case study approach was chosen for this research as the approach is particularly useful in establishing cause and effect, and the aim of this research was to establish if parental perceptions influence children choices. In addition, case studies allow the effects of a phenomenon to be observed within a real life perspective, allowing for a better understanding of how the context of a situation influences both cause and effect (Cohen et al, 2011).

Case studies are excellent for providing both the researcher and the reader with an in-depth and rich understanding of the phenomenon being investigated. Nevertheless, as a case study is usually focused upon a fairly narrow line of inquiry, focused on a specific phenomenon or a single setting, it does have its limitations. A major, often cited limitation is the lack of generality; finding and conclusion drawn by a case study cannot be applied to a wider context than that within which it was conducted (Robert-Holmes, 2011). It is therefore of upmost importance that researchers conducting case studies do not attempt to make claims applying the knowledge obtained through a case study universally.

This research employed three data collection methods within its case study research design, these were, questionnaires, documentary research and an interview. Three methods of data collection were employed in order to provide the study with triangulation. Triangulation is the process of employing two or more methods of data collection when researching an aspect of human behaviour, allowing the researcher to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the behaviour they are investigating (Cohen et al, 2011; Robert-Holmes, 2011). Triangulation is important as it provides the research with validity, which in turn makes the conclusions drawn by research more believable to the reader (Mukherji & Albon, 2009). An overview of these methods and their benefits and limitations, will follow.

Questionnaires can be a useful tool for gathering data for research as they quickly collect large quantities of data, and due to the standardised nature of the questionnaire the data collected is easily comparable (Willan, 2010; Robert-Holmes, 2011). However, it must be noted that questionnaire data lacks the depth and breadth of interview data, which offers a more in-depth insight of people’s thoughts, beliefs and attitudes (Robert-Holmes, 2011). Whilst questionnaires can be very useful, being easy to distribute and a comparatively cheap and quick method of collecting large quantities of data, they can prove problematic as getting responses back can often be challenging (Willan, 2010; Robert-Holmes, 2011). Furthermore, the formulation of a questionnaire can be difficult to get right requiring careful consideration; it is especially easy for questionnaires to lack clarity, be ambiguous and to be leading to its participants (Willan, 2010). Therefore, special consideration needs to be taken to ensure the questions are formulated in a way to ensure the necessary data is collected, whilst making sure that the questionnaire itself is not overly long or complicated. An overly long or complex questionnaire can put off potential participants, which in turn may result in a low response rate which then effects the breadth of the data collected (Oppenheim, 1992; Foody, 1993). For this reason, the questions for this projects questionnaire were designed to be clear and concise furthermore, unnecessary questions were omitted from the questionnaire in an attempt to maximise participation.

Documentary research can provide an insight into human social activity, briefly speaking a document can be describes as being a record of an event or a process, which is produced by an individual or group (Cohen et al, 2011). Documentary research can help researchers understand current practices; however through analysing historical documentation researchers can use this method to investigate how historical perceptions have influenced current thinking (Willan, 2010; Cohen et al, 2011). Documentary evidence can come in many different formats and is not merely the analysis of written documents, such as policy documents and letters; documentary evidence can be obtained from various multimedia sources such as radio, films and emails (Willan, 2010; Cohen et al, 2011). The documents analysed by this research were collages of favourite toys produced autonomously by the child participants; it was used to provide a current picture of the children’s toy preferences obtained with minimal adult influence. However, documents do not provide information automatically, they require careful analysis and interpretation to reveal the information contained within them. Therefore, the worth of data obtained through documentary analysis is highly variable, depending on how able the person analysing it is to fully understanding its meaning (Cohen et al, 2011).

The final method of data collection employed by this study was the semi-structured interview, employing the use of an interview guide which, while listing areas to be discussed was not a fixed, premeditated interview schedule as would be used in a structured interview (Robert-Holmes, 2011). The semi-structured technique was selected over the structured technique as it provides a good degree exploration whilst minimising the potential to wander from the intended area of discussion (Willan, 2010; Robert-Holmes, 2011). Semi-structured interviews centre firmly on the participant and their beliefs and opinions, rather than the researcher, which is the case in a structured interview; there is far more scope for the participant to influence the course the interview takes. When conducting a semi-structured interview the researcher acts as a facilitator encouraging the participants to vocalise their opinions about the matter being discussed (Robert-Holmes, 2011).

The interviews for this study were conducted as a group in the children’s school environment, additionally the researcher was known to these children from their role as a volunteer in the class. These measures were taken to ensure that the children felt as comfortable as possible, as feeling intimidated or uncomfortable by the situation could potentially affect the success of the interview (Robert-Holmes, 2011). Furthermore, it was felt that building a good rapport with the children, through volunteering in their classroom before commencing the data collection was imperative. This was because children are generally not used to unfamiliar adults asking them about their thoughts, feelings or experiences, therefore good researcher-child relationships are fundamental for successfully interviewing children (Folque, 2010).

3.2: Ethical Considerations

Before data collection commenced a letter explaining the aims and data collection methods of this research was presented to both the school and the parents of the children participating in the research. This was to ensure that all parties involved were aware of how and why the research was being conducted; a Criminal Records Bureau enhanced disclosure certificate was also shown to the school and made available for the parents to view to demonstrate that the research was being conducted by a suitable adult.

Through giving participants transparent information on the aims and data collection methods of the research allowed the adult participants to give their informed consent to participate on the research. Parents were asked for their permission for the children to participate, additionally the children were briefed on their part in the research and it was made clear to all parties that their participation was in no way compulsory and that they were free to withdraw at any point. Copies of the letters sent to the school and parents, along with the ethical approval form for this research can be found in the appendices (See Appendix 2 and 3).

Chapter Four: Results
4.1 Analysing Children’s Toy Collages
Introduction

In order to collect information about the toy preferences of the children participating the document analysis method of data collection was used, the documentary evidenced analysed was collages created by the children of their favourite toys. Full details of this method can be found in the methodology chapter of this research project (See 3.1).

Aims

The aim of using document analysis was to ascertain the children’s toy preferences in a naturalistic and unbiased way. It allowed the children to complete a collage of their favourite toys autonomously, with minimal outside influences. This information was required to determine to what extent, if at all, children prefer gender stereotypical toys.

Procedures

In total 31 families of Year 2 children at a West Midlands primary school were contacted with details the research and asked if they would be interested in participating. In total 10 families expressed an interest in taking part, giving a response rate of 32.2 %, 4 families were then selected to participate. The families selected were of white British background and from intact family units. These families were chosen because of the commonality of their backgrounds, in order to minimise variables due to ethnicity, culture and family dynamics. The sample group consisted of four children; 2 boys and 2 girls aged between 6 and 7years old.

The children were provided with a toy catalogue, featuring a wide range of different types of toys. The children were also provided with a choice of coloured paper, scissors and glue. Adults were on hand to assist the children with cutting out and sticking if this was needed.

The activity was child led but supervised by adults, this was to minimise adult influence on the children’s choices whilst ensuring the activity was safe. The activity was conducted in the children’s school environment, to ensure the children felt comfortable in order to minimise any negative effect on either the participants or the data collected (see 3.1). The children were told that they could browse through the catalogue, cut out the toys which they favoured and use them to make their collage. The children were also informed that if they could not find a toy they l

Fred Froebel was a German Educationalist who is best known for his work on the importance of play and as the “inventor of kindergarten.” Froebel believed that a child’s educational environment is important in helping a child reach his or her full potential. Froebel also stressed the importance of developmentally appropriate activities, free play, and the involvement of parents in the growth of a child educationally and socially. He provided the theoretical basis for early childhood education.

Many practices used in the classroom today involve free self activity, creativity, social participation, and motor expression, which are the four main components in Froebel’s philosophy of education. Unlike many educators before him, who believed that children should be taught to become productive members of society as soon as possible, Froebel believed that a child should be taught what is appropriate for their developmental level and ability. Froebel envisioned a small world, know as kindergarten, where children could play with others their own age and experience their first taste of independence. It was Froebel’s belief that through play, or free self-activity, those children could engage with others through movement and externalize their imaginative powers and thoughts. Children could think of an activity, plan it out, and then act it out. Froebel believed that the idea and concept of fee self-activity, thinking, planning, then acting, could carry a child from one educational level to another.

To help children grow from one educational level to another, Froebel designed stimulating instructional materials which he called “gifts and occupations.” Froebel’s “gifts” included such items as cubes, spheres, and cylinders. These objects could help children understand the concepts of dimensions, shape, size, and their relationships. Froebel felt that children should learn by doing. The “occupations” were items such as paint, clay, or other materials where children could make what they want. For Froebel, this was a way that children could show what was going on in their minds. Froebel believed that children should not be rushed through the educational process but, that they should be able to grow and develop and their own pace. They should not be molded into what society wants them to be. Froebel believed that through free self-activity and the use of instructional materials, children would begin to understand themselves and the world around them.

Froebel believed that an important part of a child’s education was their parents. Parents were, and still are; the child’s first educator’s and provides the most consistent form of education in a child’s life. The child understands the nature of the home and how it works. Naturally, the child will act this out during free play. It was important for Froebel to provide a family setting within the school. Children could engage socially in a non-threatening environment. Thus, children could express themselves freely and develop social skills that will help them as they move from one education level to another and every day in their lives.

Froebel provided the theoretical basis for early childhood education. At the time, his ideas and theories were revolutionary. He tried to get others to see the importance of his theories and pushed for adding kindergarten to a child’s formal education. He saw limited success in his lifetime but, his theories and practices are apparent in any early childhood classroom today. Early childhood practices and classrooms are designed around Froebel’s ideas and theories of free self-activity, creativity, social interaction, and motor expression.

John Pestalozzi

John Pestalozzi was a writer, philanthropist, and educator who greatly influenced the development of the educational system in Europe and America. Teachers from all over the world would travel to observe and study his methods. Pestalozzi was influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Like Rousseau, he believed in the “natural goodness” of people, the corruption of society, individual differences, and one’s readiness to learn. Pestalozzi centered his educational philosophy around love. He stressed the impotance of children’s feelings, self-respect, and their emotional security. Pestalozzi’s contributions to education include his educational philosophy and instructional method, sensory learning through object lessons, and his use of activities, excursions, and nature studies.

Pestalozzi envisioned schools that were “homelike.” He believed that a learning environment where children felt emotionally secure, was the setting for successful learning. Pestalozzi worked with orphans. He believed that everyone had a right to a good education and worked to provide them with a school that would meet their educational and emotional needs. Pestalozzi also believed that instructions should follow the general process of human conceptualization that begins with sensation. He designed object lessons where children observed the shape, size, and weight of an object and, named it after their experience with it. He designed a series of elaborate object lessons that ranged from simple to abstract. During these lessons he included materials from nature such as, plants and animals. Pestalozzi’s object lessons encouraged the entrance of natural science and geography into the elementary classroom, and was the most popular and widely used ideas of Pestalozzi. These ideas also encouraged what we now call field trips, nature walks, and even dissecting animals in science class.

Pestalozzi emphasized children’s interest and needs. His influence can be found today in child-centered classrooms, child permissiveness, and hands-on learning activities in the classroom. He also viewed the child as a whole, focusing on their mental, physical, and psychological development. Pestalozzi’s greatest contribution to education is philosophy of natural education that emphasized a child’s dignity and the importance of actively engaging children in the learning process through sensory experiences.

In this assignment I will cover what safe guarding means and what legislations have been put into place to support children young people and families. I will also discuss the different types of abuse that children can be affected by. I will also relate to different theories that are linked to child abuse. Safeguarding children legislation and procedures was put into place to avoid child abuse. .

Safeguarding is a multi-disciplinary team that work together to reduce the risk of children who don’t receive basic child protection, safeguarding aims to prevent the lack of children’s health and development.it also safeguards children from maltreatment and ensures children have a safe, effective environment at home.

The safeguarding legislation was bought into place in order to protect children from getting abused. The legislation protects children from the following,

Protecting children from mistreatment

Preventing impairment of children’s health and development

Ensures children are growing up in conditions with provision of safe an effective care.

The following means that every child should have the above in order for them fulfil everything they want. On the other hand not all children have the opportunity as they get abused and neglected.

16% of children (1 in 6) experience serious maltreatment by parents, of whom one third experience more than one type of maltreatment. Cawson (2002). This quote shows that not all children have a good life as they are mistreated by parents. There are numerous types of child abuse physical, emotional, sexual and neglect.

Physical harm is when an adult intentionally harms a child is physical abuse. This can include hitting, shaking, throwing, poisoning, burning, and slapping. Emotional abuse takes place through verbal cruelty for example continuous verbal attacks sexual abuse is when a child is forced in sexual activity they may not want do.

“The Persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development.” Neglect is when the child’s needs are not met for example adequate foods, water, shelter. If these needs are not persistently met children are being neglected. Abraham Maslow also states that the physiological needs to be met in order for a child to move to the next stage of the hierarchy.

Child abuse is seen differently within the broad frame work there are different types of action, or inactions that could be measured abusive in their consequences for children. What others may consider as child abuse you may not consider as abuse. Children with repeated, hard to explain, injuries can be affected very seriously. The impact it has on children can be physical, psychological, behavioural and societal consequences. For example damage to a child’s growing brain, can obligate to psychological effects such as cognitive delays and emotional difficulties.

Child abuse affects a child in many ways as it has a major affect in their life and results in affecting their emotional feelings. There are many theories that link to why child abuse or neglect could take place in a child’s life. One of the theories which could link to child abuse could be attachment this is where the child seeks attention from the mother the things this could involve would be crying, or any other way of attraction.

Statistics show that “Approximately 50,500 children in the UK are known to be at risk of abuse right now”. This has been identified by the NSPCC. Research indicates that this is around 50,500 get neglected or abused.

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/prevalence_and_incidence_of_child_abuse_and_neglect_wda48740.html 10/11/2012

After the victoria climb’e incident and baby p the government has put a lot of legislations in place in order for them to tackle child abuse, as child abuse has become very common. Below are a few of the legislations which i will look at in depth,

Safeguarding Children 2008

Children Act 2004

Every Child Matters 2003

Common Assessment Framework 2006/7

Working Together To Safeguard Children 2007

These legislations are used by all practitioners to work together and ensure every child is safe and loved for. Safeguarding has to be met by all practitioners to prevent any child from abuse or neglect. On the other hand there is a difference between safe guarding as child protection. Child protection is when multi agencies are obligatory to keep the children when they are at harm and to safeguard them.

The following people can take action school teachers, school nurse, if it is not an education setting then police, social services and other organisations such as the NSPCC can take responsibility.

Safeguarding children is very important in all settings to ensure children are in a safe environment. When working with children all staff have to undertake a CRB check to guarantee that all staff have a clear history and have no offences. If CRB checks are not carried out children could be at risk. All schools have safeguarding procedures in place in order for all the children to be in a safe environment.

The common assessment framework was introduced after Lord Laming was appointed in April 2001 to chair a self-governing constitutional Investigation into the circumstances leading to and surrounding the death of Victoria Climbie. Victoria had been physically ill-treated by her great aunt Victoria and suffered many injuries. The common assessment framework was put into place in order to assess all children and young people to support earlier intervention, to develop communication amongst practitioners. The reason why victoria’s case was not dealt with appropriately was because agencies were not working together. This would not result now as all agencies work together and work as multi-disciplinary teams. This will benefit practitioner as well as keep the child. On the other hand the CAF has its positives and negatives. As they share information it is easier for practitioners to resolve the problem quickly.

The CAF is to be used for children who have additional needs in one or more of three areas:

Their development and growth

Extra learning requirements

Family and environmental problems and any precise needs of the parent/ carer.

Working together to safeguard children was also put in place after the death of victoria Climbie. This legislation focuses on all settings to work together to safeguard children. It also allows families and children to access services that are available to them if they need any help or support.

ECM stands for Every Child Matters. It’s a green paper which means that it is not yet legislation and hasn’t become a white paper. The reason for ECM is to get rid of inequality and improve the life of children that aren’t well off. This green paper is a follow on from the paper that Laming produced after Victoria Climbie’s death. Cheminais (2008) writes that there are five outcomes for Every Child Matters. These are be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic wellbeing. By being healthy the child should be physically, emotionally and mentally well. They should have a healthy was of living. An example of this would be eating healthy and exercising. It is not only the child’s responsibility to keep themselves healthy but also their parents and anyone that works with them. Staying safe is about being safe from bullying or any harm and injury. This also means having a steady home environment. To enjoy and achieve is to have fun whilst learning and not be doing something that makes them feel uncomfortable, rather be doing something that makes them happy. Making a positive contribution is to be supportive of others but also to have your own opinions. To have confidence and have a positive attitude on the outlook of life. Economics is to do with finance and money. The child should be supported by parents and their home should not have a low income. The child should also be able to have access to good materials and be prepared to work and go in to higher education if they want. Throughout all these five outcomes the child should be supported and guided with the help of parents and other people that care for the child. However this puts more pressure on teachers as they have to take more responsibility. Some teachers do say that their job is to teach the children and not be another parent type figure to them.

The role of the teacher is to realise when a child is uncomfortable and to find out why. To notice any abuse or neglect. Practitioners should work with other agencies and share information so that the issue at hand can be dealt with. Teachers must observe the way children play. Smith (2008, p50) writes about the signs of recognising child abuse and neglect. The signs can be the child using toys to act out sexual experiences, drawings of abuse, being afraid of a person or not wanting to go home. The child might develop aggressive behaviour or the opposite, hostile, withdrawn behaviour. They also might have bruising or unexplained injuries and when asked, the child might give a shaky answer or tell a lie. The parent may also lie when brought in to discuss the child. Disguised compliance is another way the parents might make the services and teachers think that things are getting better or are resolved. They will go along with what the authorities say and after a while return to how it was before. The parent or parents only do this as a way of putting up and act.

There are techniques in which disclosures of abuse must be dealt with and responded to. Dare and O’Donovan (2000) write that when a child discloses in you, you must be calm about it. You shouldn’t be shocked or keep asking the child what happened. This will only make them not want to say anything. You must reassure them but also let them know that what they have told you can’t be kept confidential. The named member of staff must be told about what has been disclosed in you. The practitioner must know how to record information and where it is kept. The practitioner must also keep in control of their emotions. They will have to deal with parents and the child. Kids First (2009, online) describe how to make a report when calling the social services. Basic details must be given such as the name, age and address of the child as well as their parent or guardians name. The state of the child, for example if any abuse has taken place and if there are injuries. Where the child is being kept while the report is being made and if possible say if any harmful substances or objects are being kept at the child’s home or anything that could put the child at risk.

The points that were in the introduction have been discusses as well as being expanded on. There have been references throughout from both books and online to support the points that were made in this assignment.

References Safeguarding

Online

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/caf

parliament.uk. 2003. House of Commons. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmhealth/570/570.pdf. [Accessed 10 November 12].

Medical news today. 2012. What Is Child Abuse? What Is Child Neglect?. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/241532.php. [Accessed 11 November 12].

Melinda Smith and Jeanne Segal,. 2012. HelpGuide. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm. [Accessed 07 November 12].

Neglect quote
Books

Damien Fitzgerald, (2007). Working Together in Children’s Services. 1 Edition. Routledge

Jennie Lindon, (2003). Child Protection.2nd Edition. Hodder Education.

Barbara Lindon, (2003). Contemporary Child Care Policy and Practice. Edition. Palgrave

The focus of this review will concentrate on addressing the issues and concepts surrounding the subject of Outdoor Provision in the Early Years setting. The review will begin by looking at the current literature supporting the suggestion that play has been identified as an essential part of early childhood education, touching on recent educational literature as well as a look at past theorist’s views and how this has affected early years practice to the present day. The review will then follow on from this with the main body of the essay discussing the literature and research on the outdoor environment within the early years setting focusing on the positive and negative areas surrounding the topic. In order to accomplish this, the review will analyse and synthesise current educational literature surrounding the main issues and ideas on the outdoors. In relation to the outdoors, the review will also touch upon issues raised regarding the relationship between the outdoor environment and boys’ attainment and the importance of equal opportunities within early years settings. The review will conclude with reference to all of the findings from recent educational literature relating to the outdoors and the issues and ideas surrounding it.

“Play is the highest expression of human development in childhood, for it alone is the free expression of what is in a child’s soul”(Fredrich Froebel n/d)

Introduction

It has been continually reported and researched, that we expect too much too soon from our young children today. Early Years Practitioners are under pressure from government statistics and league tables to conform to a formal style of teaching too early, but how do we resist top down curriculum pressure? The time given to childhood is continually being eroded as children are rushed towards the adult world. “Rather than being receivers of information, young children need to enjoy the experience of discovery, so that they can apply knowledge, concepts and skills, and take calculated risks in a structured rather than a directed environment. In all activities children need to play.” (Warden 1999).

Have we forgotten about the importance of childhood, the importance of ‘Play’? Surely it is impossible to stop children from playing? Such a strong natural drive must have a function.

“The disappearance of childhood is a contemporary phenomenon arising from a disappearing understanding of the true needs of early childhood” (Lynne Oldfield, 2001: 5)

‘Play’ has always been a topic under debate among educators and not only in the present day, as there are also vast amounts of research from past educational theorists that both support and challenge the idea. Someone once wrote that “defining play is like looking for crocks of gold at the end of a rainbow”, which seems like an appropriate definition. Play has been defined in various different ways by different theorists and throughout history philosophers and theorists have watched and questioned ‘play’. As far back as the 18th century Froebel was highly aware of the role of environmental influences in determining the full realisation of the child’s potential and his respect for children’s play was profound; “Playing is the self education of the child” (Froebel 1815).

Also in the 18th century Rousseau’s work had its emphasis on freedom for children which was later criticised for encouraging parents to allow their children to be noisy, undisciplined and unkempt. His writing was said to be responsible for this ‘provoking, obstinate, insolent, impudent, arrogant generation’.

Almost 300 years later this sounds all too familiar. By letting our children ‘play’ are we creating destructive members of the community or are we helping them to become independent, confident and capable learners? Susan Isaac’s theory would definitely agree with the latter of the two statements, in the 1920’s and 30’s. Isaacs developed both a curriculum and a means of understanding young children’s development based on her observations of their play. She wrote that, “Play is a means of living and of understanding life”. Neuroscientist, Susan Greenfield, (1996) also lends support to this view when she writes, “Play is fun with serious consequences”. The early years writer, Tina Bruce, also defines play as “something involving choice and firsthand experience”. ( Tina Bruce 2001) .

Although research about play based learning has been rife since the 17th century, it is only within the last few years that the government has recognised its importance and incorporated it into the curriculum as an essential part of early years, “Playing allows children to develop a sense of well being; develops their emotional responses and improves their interpersonal skills. It involves exploration and creativity, helping children think in a flexible manner, developing the creative process, language skills and learning and problem skills.” (DCSF, 2008).

Government documentation has not only highlighted the importance of a play based curriculum but also the importance of the outdoor environment. It states that all settings should provide “continuous outdoor provision for all children” (EFYS 2008). It is here that we move on to the importance of the outdoors as an extension to the ‘play’ within the early years. ‘Young children should be outdoors as much as indoors and need a well-designed, well-organised and integrated indoor-outdoor environment, preferably with indoors and outdoors available simultaneously’ (The Shared Vision & Values for Outdoor Play in the Early Years, 2004)

Drake looks at the work of other early years professionals and she identifies the outside area as a “valuable resource” that should be viewed as “an extension of the whole setting in which all other areas of provision can be set upaˆ¦” (Drake 2001:3). Later these findings were also supported by Helen Bilton in an early years education lecture where she stated, “The outdoor area is a complete learning environment, which caters for all children’s needs – cognitive, linguistic, emotional, social and physical. It should be available every day alongside the indoor class and throughout the year”. (Helen Bilton 2010). Claire Warden is also of the same opinion as the author of ‘Nurture through Nature’, uniting together play and the outdoors: “Play is the means through which children find stimulation, well being and happiness, and is the means through which they grow physically, intellectually and emotionally. Play is the most important thing for children to do outside and the most relevant way of offering learning outdoors.”(Warden 2008)

The outdoor environment

In Sept 2008 the EYFS was introduced as a government policy document which stated, “A rich and varied environment supports children’s learning and development. It gives them confidence to explore and learn in secure and safe, yet challenging indoor and outdoor spaces” (EYFS Commitment 3:3).

The debate about the outdoors and its importance within the early years has been discussed widely and is rarely out of the media. Not only has this been identified as an essential part of childhood education since the 18th Century but there had also been extensive research and literature produced to confirm its value and not just of opinion, but scientific research. The debate is not any more about whether or not the outdoors has a positive effect on childhood as this question has already been answered in abundance, but we still have to question how and why does it have a positive effect on children’s early years education and what are the potential benefits for learning outdoors – ‘Nurture through Nature?’.

What better way to get a good perspective of the benefits of the outdoors than to ask the children themselves? Young children are spending increasing amounts of time in educational settings which then places a big responsibility on the early year’s practitioners and the learning opportunities they provide, but what do children think about the outdoor environment? In conjunction with the ‘Every Child Matters’ document which maintains an emphasis on listening to children, a research project, ‘Mosaic’ was initiated to find out. It was found through observations that children thought that their outdoor environment was very important. In surveys with young children, particularly those carried out to inform the development of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework, being outdoors always comes out at the top of their priorities and favorite things in nursery.

The special nature of the outdoors seems to fulfill the way young children want to play, learn and develop in so many ways. Perhaps this is why children love to be outside so much! It certainly gives a strong rationale and justification for developing rich outdoor provision and providing as much access to it as possible.

Creating environments to support boys learning

The importance of the outdoor environment in the early years has already been firmly recognised, but some aspects of it in particular seem to support boys more in their natural learning styles. One of the issues raised within the early years over the last few years has been the underachievement of boys compared to girls. There have been various reasons addressed and researched but something which comes up frequently in current literature is the question “Are we planning the correct environments to support boy’s styles of learning?” As a result of this apparent lack of achievement, research had been undertaken to find out the ways in which boys learn and there has been strong evidence to suggest that learning and playing in the outdoor environment will help in raising boy’s attainment.

Bilton supports the view by stating, “Boy’s brains develop in a different sequence to girls and this could have some bearing on teaching and learning. Boys develop concepts of movement and space first so it makes sense for teaching and learning to take place in an environment such as the outdoors” (Bilton 2002:73). Boys are no less able than girls, so it seems to fall at the feet of the professionals in the early years. Are practitioners knowledgeable enough about the differing gender learning styles to offer a fair and accessible curriculum to all children? In the early years foundation stage booklet it states that, “All children, irrespective of ethnicity, culture or religion, home language, family background, learning difficulties or disabilities, gender or ability should have the opportunity to experience a challenging and enjoyable programme of learning and development .”(EYFS Statutory Guidance 2008)

Contrary to the government statutory guidelines, boys were still underachieving which sparked a new government research document to be produced, ‘Confident, Capable and Creative: Supporting boy’s achievements’. This document supports the ideas that the problem lies at the feet of the professionals in proving the incorrect type of learning opportunities, “Are we planning experiences for boys that build on their interests and value their strengths as active learners and problem solvers or are we simply expecting them to be compliant, passive recipients of new skills and knowledge” (DCSF 2007). This was also recognised by Ofsted in 2007 when it was published: “Ofsted has specifically highlighted the need to make early years provision more boy friendly and help them to achieve more rapidly by providing activities for learning that engages them.” (Ofsted 2007).

The importance of the outdoors is therefore even more crucial when looking at the future of our boy’s attainment. Are boys developing a negative image of themselves as learners because professionals are providing the wrong learning opportunities?

So what does the outdoor environment give to boys that the inside environment does not? Helen Bilton has researched boys and the outdoors significantly and she writes that, “The outdoor environment could play a central role in helping boys. They are more interested in movement, exploration and action and this type of activity occurs for the most part in the outdoor area”. (Bilton 2002: 73) Smith et al.(2003) outlines the psychological perspective on gender which concurs with Bilton’s views on boys that even though boys and girls share interests there is evidence of clear play preferences by 3 or 4 years old. “Boys are more likely to enjoy play that is more active and need more space”. (Smith et al 2003). As the outdoors is a perfect place for facilitating activities which encourage movement and multi sensory experiences it tends to support boys natural learning styles. Resources and equipment that encourage children to solve problems and overcome challenges through exploration seems to be the ideal method for engaging the interests of boys. To support these views Sarah Gharremani writes’ “Research shows the outdoors may be able to provide for boys the activities and experiences that will help them achieve”. (Nursery World 2009)

Although the research mostly supports the benefits of the outdoors for boys some research has shown that it can have a negative effect on the learning environment. (McNaughton 2000) argues that, “During free play boys regularly use physical power to control spaces. Although this seems to be part of learning what it means to be a boy, this kind of behaviour can have negative consequences for girls”. The difficulty lies in being able to control the behaviour of boys in the outdoor environment and the danger lies in the possibility of adults and children seeing the outdoor environment as being ‘boys’ territory. Not only this, but there also lies the danger of reinforcing stereotypes to very young children and maybe conveying the message that active and explorative play is for boys and not for the equally curious and creative girls.

What is the role of the practitioner outdoors?

“We believe that every young person should experience the world beyond the classroom as an essential part of learning and personal development and that these experiences make a unique contribution to young children lives.” (DfES 2005: 11)

Even though the government policy documents are constantly informing us that children are required to have access to an outdoor learning environment, it is not always as simple as just providing an outdoor area. Issues that have surfaced have been the confusion surrounding the role of the practitioner in the outside environment. Although the ‘Effective Provision of Preschool Education’ (EPPE) research identifies the outdoors as being a great place for practitioners to engage with children in ‘sustain shared thinking’. “Sustained thinking occurs when two or more individuals ‘work together’ in an intellectual way to solve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate an activity etc. Both parties must contribute to the thinking and it must develop and extend the understanding.” (Siraj-Blatchford et al 2004). The counter argument is that the outdoor environment is supposed to provide children with the opportunity for private space and opportunity to just ‘be’ a child. Questions are raised about how practitioners are trained for the role of the adult in the outdoor environment and whether or not we are providing children with the correct sort of learning opportunities or do we comprise children’s learning with our actions?

Working in both indoor and outdoor environments practitioners are required to provide a balance between child initiated activities and adult directed roles but not all practitioners find it easy to convert to a complete ‘child initiated’ play when looking at the outdoors.”Adult interaction is the hardest aspect to teach in training, knowing when to be near, to offer space, or a challenge, seems to come from within a sensitive, knowledgeable adult” (Warden 2007:18) When teachers are used to working with a pre-determined curriculum, is it a simple task to ask teachers to allow the children to lead their own learning or does this type of teaching require training and more understanding? A paper written by Maynard also questions this idea when she writes “any assumption that all teachers will find it easy to ‘let go’ and allow children to take the lead in their learning is both simplistic and overly optimistic” (Maynard 2007:207) The findings of the foundation stage pilot phase verified these doubts to be correct as they found that practitioners were unclear as to what exactly is meant by the term ‘active learning’, ‘outdoor classroom’ and even ‘play’.

The role of the practitioner is so important to the success of the outdoor environment that if managed incorrectly it could have adverse effects on the setting. This view is also demonstrated when Jan White writes “Practitioner attitudes, understanding and commitment, comfort, confidence and competence are all crucial aspects of successful outdoor provision. Practitioners having a good understanding of their role outside contributes significantly to sharing children’s pleasure in being outside.” (Jan White 2008: 9)

It is essential therefore that adults understand the benefits and potential the outdoors has on the learning and development of young people. If practitioners do not have the understanding and enthusiasm then this will have a negative effect on the leaning potentials, it is only when outdoor play is seen as a crucial part of early years education that it will be well provided for and in turn be successful. As McMillan(1930) argues, the success of children’s learning rests with the teacher. These findings were supported by theorist Bruner (1987 cited in Bilton 2008) as he talks about the interactionist approach which places a responsibility on adults to make sure children have a partnership role. “The staff role therefore involves bringing the children, environment and curriculum together.” (Bruner 1987) The presence of the adult is therefore essential as Vygotskys work on ‘the zone of proximal development’ also supports “a child on the edge of learning a new concept can benefit from interaction with a teacher”.

“We as adults can therefore effect children’s development to its detriment or to good effect” (Bilton 2010)

Importance of Risk taking

Another issue surrounding the debate about the outdoor environment which gets discussed a lot is the concern of the potential risks of this type of environment. Is it important for practitioners to give children the opportunity to take risks and make their own mistakes and learn from them or is it our job to protect them from anything that may be seen as a potential risk? (Gill cited in Bilton 2007:10) argues that “childhood is becoming undermined by risk aversion” and this echo’s a sentiment expressed by (Cunningham 2006) that adults are interfering too much with childhood. We need to give our children the opportunity to experience risk and self regulate their own safely or how else are they going to learn these skills? The royal society for the prevention of accidents (RoSPA) argues that children need challenges, “It is essential to their healthy growth and development. Children need to learn about risk, about their own capabilities and to develop the mechanism for judging it in controlled settings.” (Cook and Heseltine 1999:4)

The outdoor environment seems to be the perfect place to allow children the freedom to partake in potential ‘risk taking’ play. Although literature around this subject is rarely seen as taking a positive attitude towards it, there have been research projects which have shown the “potential links between children’s physical risk taking behaviour, the later development of risk management strategies and positive dispositions to learning” have been suggested (Smith 1998 Stephenson 2003). Practitioners expect children to make all of the right choices in so many different areas of life e.g. when to be kind, when to share etc. So why do we feel the need to take away the opportunity to make decisions about danger and risk? Can four year olds make such informed decisions about their lives? Can over protection from risk inhibit development?

It is argued that taking risks can have a positive effect on the learning development of young children. Many current researchers (Ball 2002: Gill 2007: Hughes 2001) argue for the developmental benefits of risk in the outdoors through play. Ball notes that because the future benefits of play and risk in play cannot be measured with our theoretical models, they are not appropriately considered. But is it not risk that provides children with the opportunity to learn the important skills needed in adulthood?

If we are to use the outdoor environment as a ‘classroom’ to enrich the learning experience, surely we cannot put barriers on experiences which will help children to grow and develop. By providing access to the outdoor environment you can in hand provide children with the opportunity to take risks, but with the rising ‘culture of fear’, it proves a more difficult task than once thought. Numerous writers have claimed that there needs to be more recognition placed on the positive outcomes of risky activities such as the development of self-esteem and self- confidence. (Lindon 1999: Stephenson 2003)

One element of outdoor education which emphasises its ability to fulfill these elements of child development is ‘the forest school approach’, an approach which started originally in Scandinavia but shows more evidence of the benefits of the outdoors and risk taking. What makes ‘forest school’ unique is its emphasis on learning outside in the ever changing environment and the ability to let children take risks and to access risks for themselves. Not only does this environment provide children with opportunity to develop skills in risk evaluation but also build up self-esteem and confidence when encountering situations and tasks which are new and unexplored. Although Dewey (1938,78) states that, “children need teachers to decide what is safe and also developmentally safe for them”, this is contradicted by a lot of research showing that if we give children the independence of their own learning and development they will become creative and confident learners in the future. Many theorists and researchers have agreed with this point and even though there maybe some negatives of providing children with risks, the benefits seem to outweigh the negatives. “It is only when the environment that we set up for children enables them to be adventurous and show physical and social courage that children can begin to understand themselves and others,” (Ouvry 2005)

Conclusion

Opinions and debates on the outdoor environment are vast and plenty with researchers and theorists studying every aspect of how and why the outdoor environment is a positive element of children’s early education. Having reviewed various sources of information it can be concluded that the outdoors has a significant impact on boys and their learning development. By understanding more about the ways that boys learn we are able to see that the elements of the outdoor environment can support the development of boys in order for them to achieve well and improve their attainment.

It would appear that a grey area in need of attention is the role of the adult in an outdoor environment. The evidence and research favors the suggestion that practitioners are there for the children as a scaffold to their learning rather than getting heavily involved in any learning activities. Although this seems to be something which a lot of practitioners are unsure of, if settings are going to be able to provide an outdoor environment to its full potential, then a better understanding of the elements that work best are in need of being put in place. A better understanding on how to be a supportive adult in the outdoor environment needs to be clarified and then practitioners will be able to provide the best possible learning experiences for young children.

Risk taking is always something which will come under great scrutiny as children’s safely is always of up most importance. However, a better understanding of the benefits of allowing children to take risks and make their own choices needs to be addressed. Unfortunately we are at risk of protecting our children from meeting any real opportunities for risk or challenge which will in turn affect their emotional and physical development. The over whelming evidence is that risk taking contributes to the personal traits and abilities of children and by not allowing them the opportunities to do this we are ultimately stemming their development. “The biggest ‘risk’ in the environment of young children is when there is no risk, because this unavoidably leads to risk adverse, inexperienced and unconfident young children.” (Judith Horvath 2010: 23)

Throughout this review various aspects of children’s play has been discussed, but the one thing that seems to be echoed throughout the review is the importance of play and outdoor education. There seems to be something which the outdoor environment can provide children with that we cannot mirror in our indoor environment. Something that nature and space can give our children that we cannot replicate. Children seem to be instinctively drawn towards the outdoors. Could it be that they already have the knowledge of what this environment can provide? An environment which is a natural learning environment where children feel settled and capable. An environment where children are able to gain confidence in what they can do as well as feeling the benefits of being healthy and active. An environment which provides many opportunities to experience risk, exploration and adventure. An environment which provides a connection between the nurturing aspects of nature and human beings.

Children learn through their senses, so it is of no surprise that “nature can fully engage children in a way that is wonderful to behold.”(Warden 2007: 8)

“We don’t stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing”. (George Bernard Shaw 1925)

References
Books

Bilton, H. (2010) Outdoor learning in the Early Years: Management and Innovation Third Edition Oxon: Routledge

Bruce,T. (2005) Early Childhood education, 3rd edition London:Hodder Arnold

DCSF (2008) Design for play: A guide to creating successful play spaces London: DCSF Publications

DCSF (2008) Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage Nottingham:DCSF

DCSF (2008) The Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five Nottingham:DCSF

DfES (2004) Every Child Matters:Change for children London: DfES

Drake,J. (2004) Planning Childrens play and learning in the foundation stage London:David Fulton

Garrick, R. (2009) Playing Outdoors in the Early Years London: Continuum International

Gill, T. (2008) Space orientated childrens policy: Creating child friendly communities to improve children well being, Children and Society

Gleave, J (2008) Risk and Play: A literature review London: Playday

Isaacs, S. (1932) The Nursery years: The mind of the child from birth to six years. London: Routledge

Mooney, C.G. (2000) Theories of Childhood:An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget and Vygotsky: Red Leaf Press

Ofsted (2003) The education of six year old in England London: Ofsted

Ofsted (2008) Early Years leading to excellence (online)

Ouvry, M (2003) Exercising muscles and minds: outdoor play and the early years curriculum:National Children’s Bureau

Siraj,Blachford, J. (2003) Supporting information communication technology in the early years Bunckingham:Open University

White, J. (2009) Playing and Learning Outdoors:Making Provision for high quality experiences in the outdoor environment Oxon: Routledge

Warden, C. (2007)Nurture through Nature London: Mind stretchers

Warden, C. (2007) The potential of a puddle London: Mind stretchers

Journals and Magazines

Early Years Educator (2010) Taking acceptable risks Volume 12 No 7 pp.21-23

Early Years Educator (2009) Boys will be boys Volume 11 No 7 pp. 27- 30

Gill, H. (2007) Wild woods or urban jungle: playing it safe or freedom to roam. Education 3-13, November 2007, vol. 35, no. 4, p. 321-332, ISSN: 0300-4279. Hope-Gill, Austin-Rebecca, Dismore-Harriet, Hammond-Sue, Whyte-Terry.

Gleave, J. (2008) Risk and Play: A literature Review London: Playday

Hyne, S. (2003) Play as a vehicle for learning in the foundation stage. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Student Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 10 September 2003. 2003, pp. 18.

Maynard, T. (2007) Encounters with forest school and Foucault:A risky business, in education 3-13 pp.379-91

Maynard, T. (2007) Learning in the outdoor environment: a missed opportunity, Early Years, 27 pp.255-65

Siraj,Blachford, J.(2004) Researching pedagogy in English pre schools, British educational Journal 30 pp.713-30

Waite, S. (2007) Memories are made of this: some reflections on outdoor learning and recall. Education 3-13, November 2007, vol. 35, no. 4, p. 333-347,

Waller, T. (2007) The Trampoline Tree and the Swamp Monster with 18 heads: outdoor play in the Foundation Stage and Foundation Phase. Education 3-13, November 2007, vol. 35, no. 4, p. 393-407, ISSN: 0300-4279.

Waters, J. (2007) Supporting the development of risk-taking behaviours in the early years: an exploratory study. Education 3-13, November 2007, vol. 35, no. 4, p. 365-377, ISSN: 0300-4279.

Feral children, wild child, gazelle boy, undomesticated; these are all names that have been given to children throughout the decades defined as A child who is raised without human contact, often raised by wild animals as a result of being abandoned. This is indeed a fact in history that these children exist. There are so many stories, examples and cases of feral children raised by animals in history. Examples like Victor The Wild Boy , Kamala and Amala sisters raised by a wolf, and Robert who was raised by monkeys in Uganda. It is incredible that these children were able to survive. How did they manage to stay alive, and at what cost to their humanity? Are they ever able to gain what they did not learn when integrated back into society? This is a cruel way to treat a little child, either with abuse or even just negligence to care for the child. Today feral children could be defined as any human child suffering from sensory deprivation and can be caused by their own parents. Today they can be children who have grown up with very little contact or none at all.

Feral Children explore the boundaries of environmental factors on human beings, how they develop to become what society deems to be a respectable human and the overall influences of nature versus nurture paralleled to unconditional love and the surrounding of other humans.

Many cases of feral children have occurred over several centuries. These children were isolated for so long and to a point where they do not know English or have not even seen another human being. Tales of children living and surviving in the wild, brought up by animals are almost too unbelievable to be true. Feral children are kids who have been confined with little to no human contact. Sometimes they live and survive on their own, or they have been raised by animals. Many cases prove that these feral children are not just some made up tale, but real life children living without any speech or knowledge of what is happening to them. There are many effects that occur to these children from being cut off from the real world. They include learning animal behaviours and possibly never learning to speak. Some of the children became super fast runners at times on all fours, some even covered with hair. Feral children s senses were often more developed than those of children living with humans, particularly their sense of smell and hearing. Various children found in the wild could adapt easily to changes in temperature and tolerate more pain. You may need to site some of this information, where did you get the facts?

Many people believe that these stories of children raised by animals are just that, stories made up by writers and people with vivid imaginations. This is not true; there are many documented cases of these children. In January of 1799, a young boy with no clothes on was spotted outside a small town of France, near Aveyron. This boy was named Victor, and was around the age of eleven or twelve. Victor behaved like an animal, he ate rotten food with pleasure, he was incapable of distinguishing hot from cold, and he spent much of his time rocking back and forth like a caged animal

He lived with a scientist named Dr. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard. He was dedicated to the education of the young boy trying to get him to be able to speak. Victor made little progress in all these areas and was only able to perform small tasks, such as setting a table. Eventually scientists lost funding for Victor and he was sent to live with a housekeeper. Victor died at the age of 40 in 1828.

In a more modern version of feral children is the story of the Romulus and Remus, two young girls who were discovered under the care of a she-wolf in 1920, in Godamuri, India. In order to get to the girls the wolf defended the two girls like they were her own babies, but the wolf was killed because it was attacking the men trying to save the two girls. The two girls were Kamala who was aged eight and Amala aged only 18 months old. The two girls would sleep all day and wake up at night, remained only on all fours, liked eating raw meat, and would bite or growl at people bothering them. They worked with these girls for a long time to try and find out as much as possible about feral children. Amala only lived for a year until she died but Kamala lived for nine more years until she passed away of illness. Kamala did learn a small vocabulary and eventually learned how to walk up right, but still had a good sense of sight in the dark and of raw meats at a great distance.

A feral child does not have to be a story about a lost child raised by an animal. Many cases of abused or forgotten children have come up over time. Stories such as kids being found tied to toilets or locked in a basement, some kids forced to live in a dog house because their parents are too drunk to remember them. Genie was a 13 year old girl when police took custody of her on November 25th, 1970. Genie was found only because her mother had applied for welfare and prior to this no one knew she even existed. She would be strapped to a toilet in an empty room where her parents kept her. Also was forced to sleep in a sleeping bag that was way to small for her, genie now has deformed legs because of this. She was kept in such isolation that she couldn t talk or understand people. She could only make small grunts or moans if she needed something, she could also mumble the words no more .

She was kept in her room for 10 years because her father thought she was mentally challenged as a baby. Genie had very limited socialization and she was abused for making noise which stunted her ability to communicate. They formed a group of scientists and social workers to help Genie have a normal life; this was later called The Genie Project. They worked with Genie for many years with little progress. Eventually they lost funding for her and she had to be sent to live in many foster homes were she was abused again. She currently lives in California with her foster parents.

Another case of this kind of abuse emerged from the Ukrainians, a girl named Oxona Malaya who was found living in a farm kennel. Oxana s parents were both alcoholics and did not care for her well being. This is the reason why she decided to sleep in the kennel with the dogs at such a young age. For six years she was raised by dogs, not having any human contact. Oxona would walk on all fours, bark at people, and pant like a normal dog would. Oxana did not know what a mirror was and showed no recognition of the reflected image of her. This lack of self-awareness makes her, in some respects, more like an animal than a human. These two cases show people what abusing a child can do to then. As She was growing up and learning how to speak, they discovered in a brain scan that Oxana was mentally challenged because of her time spent with the dogs, if she was just raised like a normal girl she could of a had a normal childhood growing up, instead she has to live in a foster home.

This is the reason why most children are abandoned or forgotten about, because parents do not want to have a mentally challenged child. She could have lived a normal life if her parents just cared a little more to pay more attention, but now she has to grow up learning how to talk and walk like a normal human being.

In a small village in Uganda in 1982 a little boy named John Sebunnya was found living in a tree with monkeys. He ran away from home at the age three because of the abuse he took from his parents, also his parents didn t bother looking for where John ran away. He tells his story to this day of what happened in the little English he knows. Many different councilors and scientists have sat down with him asking about his time living with the monkeys. Different aspects of his story stick out to scientists that make them wonder if this was just a case of the monkeys tolerating the boy. They would just let him eat whatever was left and never cleaned him as they would other monkeys. When it came to cleaning time for the monkeys, they would never clean John, and he said that he would just watch as they pulled bugs from each other s fur. This information made scientists think that the monkeys didn t actually take care of John but just accepted him in the group. Throughout our history, our society has tested the theory of nature vs. nurture. Some scientists believe that we are predisposed according to our genetics on how we behave. This is known as the nature theory. Other scientists believe that we behave in a certain way because of how we are taught. This is known as the nurture theory.

One topic sociologists have studied is feral children to help explain these theories. They have found that children raised by animals acquired the instincts and behaviors of the species that raised them. The study of these feral children and children who are raised or kept in extreme isolation makes it hard not to support the nurture theory or statement. These cases prove the importance of education in our society and

They show that human beings not only can be educated, but must be educated to become a human being at all. Everything that a child knows or learns must be taught; except for normal body functions like breathing or reflexes. Abilities that determine a child s success in school do not happen automatically they must be developed or nurtured . Children also learn how to be friendly, thankful, honest, trustful and respectful. All these skills must be learned and fostered. Psychologists and Scientists have studied feral children to help them gain insight into human socialization and development. By helping these children with human like abilities due to what they were going through as children. When feral children are discovered and returned to society, they often remain significantly developmentally delayed. Researchers are still trying to answer the question whether these children were already delayed or their abnormalities occurred because of their isolation in the wild. So what makes us human? Is it society or is it instilled within us? Babies do grow into adults physically, but our social beliefs and ideas are not transferred in our DNA. Even though our bodies may grow, if we are isolated we become little more than an animal. In order for children to develop into well rounded human beings, they must be surrounded by people that care for them and people that will teach them language and how to walk. Through the stories of the feral children whether true or not, it leaves us wondering what makes us human? Feral children are human biologically but their emotions are limited to what they learned in the wild. These children will now never know right from wrong, or even what their own name is, but it goes to show the little attention a child gets makes a big impact on that child in the future. Children need love and protection from other human beings in order to grow up and develop into a human being themselves. The young age these children get lost at or when there forgotten is the age the child s brain is growing, when they learn speech and ability to walk. It shows us how important it is for children to have the influence of another human to learn and love from. The nurture you give a child as a baby is what gives that child human like behaviors, nurturing a child can last a life time.

The norm of ideal childhood in common sense could be a child with two loving parents and a sibling or two, a roof over their head, their needs are met; parents would spend time with the child-playing and reading and believe in the child’s ability; child would receive a good level of education and have many friends and others beyond. However, those parents who love children only through meeting child’s needs and plan for children completely would not construct real ideal childhood. They may be unable to use their imagination and entertain themselves; they may be unable to solve problems by themselves; they may be ‘burdensome’ in their family instead of a ‘help’. Constructing an ideal childhood is more complex than people thought and the ideas shifted century by century according to economy, technology and nation state.

There are three key characteristics of ideal childhood: well-being of children, innocence of children and childhood play. Children’s well being is based on a holistic understanding of their needs and recognition of the importance of both their physical needs and their psychological needs (Montgomery et.al, 2003). The physical needs are commonly about food, shelter and psychological needs is linked to feel loved, cared and protected. It is concern some adversities are origins of imperfect childhood, such as natural disasters, ill health, poverty, family problems, exploitation, abuse discrimination, violence and living in a dangerous environment. Obviously, all above adversities have adverse impact on either physical or psychological well-being or even both in childhood. For example, poverty means an inferior level of living standard, which could lead to early touch with society if children go outsider door to find jobs. Therefore, the children’s well-being indicates a healthy, secure environment for children to grow up is significantly important for ideal childhood. However, living in slums towns is related to poverty, someone think that living in a modern apartment is harmful for children’s well-being as the children lose space for playing. The understanding of children’s well-being, especially in the area of psychology, is varied and different for different people. On the other hand, the different views of children’s well-being cannot deny one thing: the child has a need to be protected from adversities.

Children’s well being is evidently a key characteristic of ideal childhood. Moreover, well-being of children is also a premise of innocence of children as poverty, family problems, violence and some other factors indirectly influence child’s innocence. However, relatively, the innocence of childhood is not necessarily linked to well-being of children. First of all, the concept of innocence of children is associated with nature of children. Mrs. Colman (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pwsYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=innocence+of+childhood&hl=zh-CN&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false) described children in 1849:” Little children are innocent, because they do not know good from evil; they do not yet know what is false, or what is true; they are only recipients of innocence from the lord, through the angels.” and Shipman (1972) also announced that:” The child is the best copy of Adam before he tasted of Eve or the appleaˆ¦he is Nature’s fresh pictureaˆ¦his soul is yet a white paperaˆ¦” These announcements indicated a quality of purity and newness of children’s nature. However, the contemporary era has shaped the lifestyle of children from the past years. There is a concern for the so-called end of innocence, important feature of which shown in a commercial, fashion-conscious age that boys and girls are preoccupied with how they look and dress that they can no longer enjoy mucking about and having fun – that they are missing (James, 1997). Furthermore, it is claimed that childhood is ‘disappearing’, mainly through the influence of television and internet as the child gains access to the world of adult information that may includes commercial, violent or erotic elements. The version of the ideal childhood is not one of freedom and happiness; rather it is a good behaviour, different from adults.

Play is one of children’s natures, it is an expression of the child’s innocence, and it is also the highest expression of human development in childhood (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WLZxya_jB0sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=childhood+play&lr=&hl=zh-CN&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false). Children are not only innocent, but are also innovative, investigative and imaginative. Play offers children opportunities for physical, intellectual and emotional development. It encourages their creativity and imagination and interaction with other children, as well as some adults, provides opportunities for friendships, social interactions, conflicts and resolutions, which contributes to the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being of children. In this case, the meaning of play is more likely to be learning and developing in having fun. There is no one has authority to deprive children’s right to play. However, those parents who plan a full schedule for their children, aiming to increase the children’s skills with their own perspectives, are taking happiness and real talent away from their children, particularly in developing countries, such as China. The time of children for playing is comparatively less than the past years.

Child Labour against Ideal Childhood

As mentioned above, the ideal childhood lies in a satisfaction of the child’s needs, a protection from adversities and evil and a sufficient time of playing in the childhood. According to these conditions, the working children have less opportunity to experience ideal childhood as they suffer significant growth deficits compared with children in school and they may be exposed to chemical and biological hazard, which are more likely to cause cancers or other diseases. Moreover, children who work in some certain occupations are especially vulnerable to particular types of abuse. It is of course almost inevitable that children growing up in such an environment will be permanently damaged both psychologically and emotionally. It is verified that child labour is simply the single most important source of child exploitation and child abuse in the world today (http://books.google.com/books?id=cYqig0fCYEMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=child+labour&hl=zh-CN&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false). The poverty is the most important reason why children work. Poor households need the money which their children can earn. In developing countries, child labour not only increase family income, but also save large amount of education fee. For example, an article stated in China Labour Bulletin (2005) (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/15889) that juvenile labourers were at the heart of China’s economic boom; parents of juvenile workers would prefer sending their children off to work rather than education as school fees exceeded their capability, particular for rural family; however, those parents rarely know the hazardous condition in industrial work places; in addition, the child labour is strong demanded as children have smaller hands and eyesight undamaged by years of labour, making them more desirable than adults for the work like toy production, construction, food production, and light mechanical work. The Juvenile workers phenomenon in China indicated that the child labour is more potentially from the poor family which may just meet a basic need of living but cannot afford for education without doubt. The working condition for children is more likely to have adverse impact on their health. Furthermore,

Choosing a programming model, organizing the environment, and developing a program plan that is responsive to the needs of children, Early Childhood Educator’s, and families is a complicated and difficult process.

ECE’s must consider many elements of children’s development and combine their knowledge of child development with the preferred program model philosophy when planning an environment for children.

It is important to know that many different program models exist and that each program model offers different features.

Class Field trip

We are going on a field trip! Tonight we are going to visit 3 different Early Childhood Programs. Each program is based on a different model or philosophy on how children learn and succeed.

Waldorf Program Mode

Montessori Program Model

First Nations Head Start Program Model

First Stop: Waldorf Program Model

Founder – Rudolf Steiner
Waldorf Program Approach

Curriculum and experiences come from the children and that knowing children well is essential to planning a learning environment that supports children’s whole development.

Suggests that an arts-based curriculum supports children’s whole development, and so image, rhythm, movement, drawing, painting, poetry, and drama are core components.

Because of the arts-based experiences, attention to the environmental aesthetics is necessary.

Contrary to the thinking of many educators, Steiner pointed out that teachers do not provide experiences for students. Adults provide the conditions, such as the materials, space, schedule, and options, but the children lead the program design and implementation.

Frequently asked Questions about the Waldorf Model: http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/02_W_Education/faq_about.asp

What is Waldorf Education?

Answer: Based on the work of Rudolf Steiner, the curriculum draws on the natural nature of children, with emphasis on children’s learning through imagination and fantasy. Academic content is held to a minimum while art and movement are the core elements of the curriculum

What is the Preschool & Kindergarten Waldorf Program Like?

Answer: The goal of preschool and kindergarten is to develop a sense of wonder in the young child and reverence for all living things. This creates an eagerness for the academics that follow in the grades. The Waldorf Preschool; a time for imitation and play young children live in a rich world of play and discovery. They are completely open and deeply influenced by all that surrounds them. What they see and hear they imitate; unconscious imitation is the natural mode of learning for the preschool child. Everything around the child is absorbed. Accordingly, the preschool is a world of harmony, beauty and warmth.

Toys in the preschool are made from nature’s gifts: wood, sea shells, stones, pine cones, lamb’s wool. The simpler the toys the more active the children’s imagination can be.

Formal intellectual or academic schooling is excluded from the Waldorf Preschool. With an active imagination, energetic physical development, and a true curiosity for the world, children are best prepared for the challenges of formal schooling and later life.

(Paraphrased from the South African Federation of Waldorf Schools)

Preschool and Kindergarten activities include:

storytelling, puppetry, creative play

singing, dancing, movement

games and finger plays

painting, drawing and beeswax modeling

baking and cooking, nature walks

foreign language and circle time for festival and seasonal celebrations

What about the Waldorf Program for Elementary and School-Aged Children?

Answer: Elementary and middle-school children learn through the guidance of a class teacher who stays with the class ideally for eight years. The curriculum includes:

english based on world literature, myths, and legends

history that is chronological and inclusive of the world’s great civilizations

science that surveys geography, astronomy, meteorology, physical and life sciences

mathematics that develops competence in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry

foreign languages; physical education; gardening

arts including music, painting, sculpture, drama, eurhythmics, sketching

handwork such as knitting, weaving, and woodworking

What is unique about Steiner Waldorf education? How is it different from other alternatives? (Public Schooling, Montessori, Head Start, etc.) http://www.steinerireland.org/faq/#2

Answer: The aim of Waldorf schooling is to educate the whole child, “head, heart and hands”. The curriculum is as broad as time will allow, and balances academics subjects with artistic and practical activities. Steiner Waldorf teachers are dedicated to creating a genuine love of learning within each child. By freely using arts and activities in the service of teaching academics, an internal motivation to learn is developed in the students, doing away with the need for competitive testing and grading. Some distinctive features of Steiner Waldorf education include the following:

Academics are de-emphasized in the early years of schooling. There is no academic content in the Steiner Waldorf kindergarten experience (although there is a good deal of cultivation of pre-academic skills), and minimal academics in first grade. Reading is not taught until second or third grade, though the letters are introduced carefully in first and second.

During the elementary school years (grades 1-8) the students have a class (or “main lesson”) teacher who stays with the same class for (ideally) the entire eight years of elementary school.

Certain activities which are often considered “frills” at mainstream schools are central at Steiner Waldorf schools: art, music, gardening, and foreign languages (usually two in elementary grades), to name a few. In the younger grades, all subjects are introduced through artistic mediums, because the children respond better to this medium than to dry lecturing and rote learning. All children learn to play recorder and to knit.

There are no “textbooks” as such in the first through fifth grades. All children have “main lesson books”, which are their own workbooks which they fill in during the course of the year. They essentially produce their own “textbooks” which record their experiences and what they’ve learned. Upper grades use textbooks to supplement their main lesson work.

Learning in a Steiner Waldorf school is a noncompetitive activity. There are no grades given at the elementary level; the teacher writes a detailed evaluation of the child at the end of each school year.

The use of electronic media, particularly television, by young children is strongly discouraged in Steiner Waldorf schools

Tour: Waldorf Preschool: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/a_rcQD5Yh7nfhAYpfBKHuQ

In Class Discussion

What did you like about the Waldorf Program?

Is there anything you didn’t like about the Waldorf Program Model?

Second Stop: Montessori Program Model

Founder-Maria Montessori

Montessori Program Approach

Montessori’s method requires teachers to conduct naturalistic observations and carefully prepare environments with experiences that become more complex and that are self correcting.

Children will interact with materials described as work tasks. Children are given the choice of material that they wish to explore, and the adult demonstrate the steps to be carried out when using the new material. Then the children may use the materials, which focus on daily living, sensory, academic, or cultural and artistic experiences.

An example of a work task in a Montessori classroom is polishing shoes. On a child-sized tray, the adult organizes the buffing cloth, the polish, and the shoes. The adult demonstrated to the children what each cloth is for, how to open the polish, how to dip the cloth into the polish, how to apply the polish, how to buff the shoe and to reapply polish. Once the demonstration is complete, children my pursue the work task independently.

Frequently asked Questions about the Montessori Model

What is Montessori Education?

http://www.a-childs-place.com/faqs.html

Answer: Montessori is a philosophy of education popular throughout the world that encourages and supports the unfolding of a child’s maximum potential by assisting the child to educate herself at her own pace. Its main beliefs are:

each child is a unique individual and has the ability to explore her own capabilities given the right environment;

children have sensitive periods for learning (i.e., for language, order, movement);

very young children learn through their unconscious absorbent minds;

observation is crucial;

appropriate developmental environments and expectations are essential.

The philosophy respects the individuality of the child, her freedom and choice within limits. The role of the adult in the environment is to assist the child to meet her needs thus leading her to explore her identity, independence and realize her full potential. An environment is prepared to guide the child in self directed activities with hands-on sensory activities. The concrete materials require movement and the use of his hands to develop his mind. The philosophy respects the natural abilities and progression of each individual child’s development.

How does Montessori differ from traditional education? http://www.a-childs-place.com/faqs.html

Answer: Montessori education differs from traditional education in many ways but probably the most fundamental difference is that Montessori is child-centered whereas traditional education is teacher-centered. Please see the list of comparison below that has been adapted from the American Montessori Society:

Montessori Education
Traditional Education

early start in school (2-3)

late start in school (5-6)

3-year age range per class

one age per class

freedom to move about &choose work

seated at desks

community atmosphere

little socialization

individual lessons

large group lessons

self-correcting materials

teacher as source of answers

natural, logical consequences

rewards and punishments

longer free work periods

frequent interruptions

enhanced curriculum

limited curriculum

progress of student as test

peer comparison as test

emphasis on learning

emphasis on grades

emphasis on individuality

emphasis on conformity

progress at individual rate

annual promotion

emphasis on “self”control

teacher as disciplinarian

PEACE in education

corporal punishment

strong school/home ties

little parent involvement

observation based progress reports

graded report cards

child centered schedule

adult centered education

Why does Montessori have mixed age groups? http://www.apsva.us/155020101915521140/lib/155020101915521140/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Montessori_Education.pdf

Answer: Mixed age groups free children to enjoy their own accomplishments rather than comparing themselves to others. Older children provide leadership and guidance, and benefit from the satisfaction of helping others. Younger children are encouraged by attention and help from older children. They learn through observation of older children. At the same time, older children reinforce and clarify their knowledge by sharing it with younger ones. Children easily learn to respect others, and at the same time develop respect for their own individuality. This interaction of different age children offers many occasions for building community, as well as nurturing the development of self-esteem. This encourages positive social interaction and cooperative learning.

With mixed age groups and individualized teaching how do Montessori teachers keep track of all the children?http://www.apsva.us/155020101915521140/lib/155020101915521140/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Montessori_Education.pdf

Answer: The Montessori method is based on scientific observation. A key aspect of a Montessori teacher’s training is learning how to systematically observe when a child reveals an especially strong interest towards a piece of knowledge or skill. Teachers observe for children’s independence, self-reliance, self-discipline, love of work, concentration and focus. They also observe for the mood of the class – an overview of the mood of the whole class as well as the mood of individual children.

In addition to keeping observation notes, teachers keep records of lessons presented to individual children and record children’s progress in working toward mastery of skills.

Is there too much individual work in Montessori? Do children learn how to get along with others?http://www.apsva.us/155020101915521140/lib/155020101915521140/Frequently_Asked_Questions_about_Montessori_Education.pdf

Answer: Montessori children are free to work alone or in a group. Although younger children do often choose to work alone as they master challenges, there are many aspects of Montessori schools that help children learn to get along well with others. They learn to share. They learn to respect each other’s work space. They learn to take care of materials so other children can learn from them. They learn to work quietly so others can concentrate. And they learn to work together with others to take care of the classroom. As they get older, most children choose to work in small groups.

Tour: Montessori Preschool
How are Waldorf and Montessori Models Different?

Please take some time to read the following article titled Waldorf vs Montessori. How are the programs the same? How are the two different?

http://www.jnorth.net/mindmaps/personal/parenting/parenting%20research/Waldorfvs.Montesorri.html

Dear Class:

If you are interested in learning more about the Montessori Method please take sometime and enjoy the information provided below: The Video is a youtube video so some of your computers may not open it up.

Montessori Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM1Gu9KXVkk

The Montessori Method-The Classroom: http://www.circleofinclusion.org/english/approaches/montessori.html

Head Start Approach: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/famil/develop/ahsor-papa_intro-eng.php

The Aboriginal Head Start On Reserve initiative is designed to prepare young First Nations children for their school years, by meeting their emotional, social, health, nutritional and psychological needs.

This initiative encourages the development of projects that are comprised of the following program components: culture and language, education, health promotion, nutrition, social support and parental involvement.

The program encourages the development of locally controlled projects in First Nation communities that strive to instill a sense of pride and a desire to learn; provide parenting skills and improve family relationships; foster emotional and social development and increase confidence. It is also designed to assist parents enhance their skills which contribute to their child’s healthy development.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Aboriginal Head Start Model

First Nations Head Start Standard Guide

What is the objective of Aboriginal Head Start?

Answer: To provide First Nation children with the opportunity to develop their physical, emotional and social needs in a culturally relevant environment. The goal of Head Start is to provide all children with a safe, nurturing and enjoyable learning environment that supports their development with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in their present environment, in school and in life.

Does the Head Start model see Parent(s)/Guardian(s) as important to a child’s learning?

Answer: Head Start will provide First Nations parent(s)/legal guardians/extended family with assistance and support in acquiring good parenting and life skills through activities such as workshops and information sessions. Parent(s)/legal guardian(s)/extended family are important partners in the process of planning and implementing a curriculum, and are crucial in reviewing the effectiveness of it.

What does a Head Start Curriculum Include?

Answer: It is recommended that First Nations Head Start projects establish a curriculum that reflects the developmental needs of the children of the program as well as the six program components: nutrition, education, family involvement, social supports, health promotion and culture and language. Development of a curriculum may also include input from an early childhood education specialist, parent(s), Elders, cultural advisor and/or other appropriate resource person(s).

A curriculum may include, but not limited to the following components:

provide opportunity to learn through play

provide a balance of structured learning environments and natural environments

provide opportunity to enhance school readiness skills and cognitive development

supports fine and gross motor development

uses lots of teaching materials including, but not limited to age and culturally appropriate books, videos, computer programs, toys, guest speakers

provides learning experiences through food preparation and through sampling a variety of nutritious foods including traditional foods

encourages role playing and dramatic play

encourages conversation and language skill development

provides the opportunity for the children to express their feelings, concerns, ideas and fears

provides learning experiences that are age and developmentally appropriate and respective of the individual child

provide learning experiences that are culturally appropriate

provides opportunity to further develop socialization skills

provides learning opportunities to develop child awareness of safety in the home, at school and in the community

allows for creative expression through art, music, dancing, singing and storytelling

provides opportunity for sensory learning including touch, taste, smell. sight and hearing

provide both indoor and outdoor activities and learning experiences

Components of Quality Programs
In Class Activity

Your friend is returning to work after having been a stay-at-home parent. You have been asked to visit a child care center for this friend to determine if it is a quality center, one that you would recommend for her child. What indicators or aspects of quality will you be looking for?

Quality Indicators

Quality Indicators are predetermined outcome measures used to determine the level of quality to be achieved or that has been achieved.

Indicators of Quality

Personal suitability and educational preparation of early childhood educators

The Canadian Child Care Federation indicates the need for early childhood educators to have experience and formal post-secondary studies in early childhood education.

ECE participate in continuous learning that supports their ares of interest, specialization, or identified needs.

They mentor new ECE entering the field

Early learning and child care environments

Early learning and child care programs “respond to children’s needs by offering continuous opportunities for learning and nurturance.

The goals of the service or determined by the needs of the children and the shared philosophies of parents and care providers.

All practices that take place are based on sound child development theories and practices.

Group size and ratios

Small group sizes support the quality of interaction among children, peers and adults, and they provide more opportunities for each child to have a one-on-one conversations with ECE’s.

Adult interactions

The early childhood educator develops and nurtures an “open, friendly and informative relationship with each child’s family and encourages their involvement.

ECE’s believe in mutual respect, trust, and co-operation among colleagues, peers, families, and community partners.

Health and nutrition

Effective health and nutrition principles and practices are role modeled on a daily basis

Safety

ECE’s examine indoor and outdoor play space and programming strategies to ensure that safety practices are being followed, while allowing and encouraging children to take safe risks.

Partnership

Early learning an child care staff form partnerships among parents, colleagues, all levels of government, training institutions, and provincial, territorial, and national organizations related to early learning and child care.

Respect for cultural values and diversity

Early learning and child care settings incorporate family and community cultural attributes into the program.

Assessment and evaluation

Early learning and child care programs establish a process for evaluating and assessing all aspects of their program delivery. Action plans are developed, implemented, and evaluated at frequent intervals as a way to monitor the intended change in practice.

Family support

Early childhood educators respect and support the needs and attributes of families

Elements of Quality Environments

Traditionally three critical elements were used to identify quality Early Childhood Programs:

the adult/child ratio

the number of children in a group

the staff’s professional education

Types of Quality

Structural Quality

adult/child ratio’s

maximum group size

educational training of the staff

Process Quality

relationships

developmentally appropriate activities

caregiver consistency

parent involvement

warm, sensitive & nurturing care giving

Caregiver Characteristics

Education & Experience – includes ongoing professional development

ECE’s who have post-secondary education in ELCC tend to be more responsive to the children, provide children with stimulating activities that are developmentally appropriate & support the parents

Stability & Job Satisfaction

caregiver continuity is important for infants & toddlers because they are in the process of forming attachment relationships

ECE’s that are satisfied with their new jobs are more likely to provide encouragement and guidance.

Contextual Factors

infrastructure

directors/coordinators administrative style and the organizational climate

wages

working conditions such as paid preparation time, opportunities for professional development and appropriate adult child ratios

government regulations and funding

community relationships

family involvement

Engagement | Exploration | Application | Connection | Top

created 12-Oct-2009

modified 04-Nov-2010

glossary

copyright

In today’s society families are busier than ever before. Many families consist of both parents working outside the home to make ends meet, and increasingly, many children are being raised in a single-parent and blended or binuclear homes. Some statistics claim that 75% of all children will spend some time within a single-parent household. When something has to give to meet the demands of raising a family, one of the first things to go seems to be family meals. How many families continue to eat meals together on a regular daily basis? And, does not eating meals together as a family impact family relationship and to what extent? Research on this subject is overwhelming and seems to prove that the lack of family mealtime not only impacts the family, but society as well.

During a recent family dinner, a young female acquaintance was amazed to find that there was no special occasion that brought the family to the dinner table, that it was a nightly affair. To the family it was just an ordinary meal of pot roast, nothing special, but to her, it was a feast. In questioning her as to her family traditions and meals, it was amazing to learn that her family never ate meals together. Their meals consisted of pre-packaged or frozen foods and they ate whenever they were hungry and wherever they happened to be. They ate in the living room while watching TV or in their bedroom, but generally they ate alone. That was the normal routine for her family.

It is no wonder that families today are facing problems with obesity, eating disorders, drug abuse, students with low scholastic achievement, and battle depression. Statistics show that “Children who frequently eat meals with their families tend to do better in school”, “consumed higher amounts of important nutrients such as calcium, fiber, iron, vitamins B6 and B12, C and E and consumed less overall fat, compared to families who ‘never’ or ‘only sometimes’ eat meals together” (Meals Matter, 2008). Studies show that the more a family eats together the less likely the children are to drink, smoke, do drugs, have eating disorders, get depressed and have suicidal tendencies. Families who eat together regularly have children who do better in school, delay having sex, eat healthier, have better table manners, and a larger vocabulary. This confirms that it isn’t just about eating food, but rather the interaction and caring between families.

A ten year study at Columbia University by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) found that the older kids are, the more they need time together with their family, but they are less likely to get it. The study shows that 12-year-olds claimed they had dinner seven nights a week, but only a quarter of 17-year-olds did (Time). This same study found that the least educated parents ate meals together the most, while parents with diplomas or college degrees shared fewer meals together with their kids. Another interesting find was that “more than half of Hispanic teens ate with a parent at least six times a week, in contrast to 40% of black teens and 39% of whites”.

Mealtime is where a family builds its culture and identity, family traditions and stories are passed down as well as humor being shared. Eating meals together encourages more communication within the family. Topics can be discussed, parents can see how their child interacts, what they are wearing, find out who their friends are and what they are interested in, as well as discuss current events and help qualm fears their child may have concerning school, friends, their future plans, and life in general. In other words, family interaction at mealtimes informs the parents as well as the kids what is happening within the family and the world that surrounds them.

According to Science Daily, “parents who have regular meals with their adolescent children might help lessen the chances they will start drinking or smoking later in their teen years”. (ScienceDaily, 2008) The Division of Adolescent Health and Medicine at the University of Minnesota surveyed 806 Minnesota adolescents as to how often they ate meals with their family as well as their use of marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol and followed up with a second mail survey five years later. According to the follow-up survey, girls who ate regular family meals had significantly less substance abuse than girls who didn’t have regular family meals. The surprising find in this survey was that boys showed no difference in substance abuse determined by the frequency or absence of family mealtime.

In a study of 65 children that spanned 65 years, Harvard researchers looked at activities of children and how they contributed to healthy child development. They used things such as play, story time, family functions and other factors and the end result was that dinners were the most important attribute for better adjustment. (Marino & Butkus, unknown) Researchers discovered a link between well-adjusted adolescents and the frequency of family meals, with no correlation to gender, age, or family type. A survey conducted in 1997 of 527 teens revealed that those who were best adjusted ate a meal with an adult family member at least 5 days a week, “were less likely to do drugs or be depressed and were more motivated at school and had better relationships” (Marino & Butkus, unknown). Meanwhile, according to Child Trends’ Data Bank, in 2003, 42 percent of adolescents ate a meal with their family at least six days a week, while 27% ate a meal as a family four to five days a week, and 31% ate meals as a family less than three days a week. (Child Trend’s, 2007)

In taking a survey of a son’s friends (1 female, 5 males) the results revealed that a surprising number of them that did not eat regular family meals together (Zemke, Feb 10, 2010). One of these friends had a family dinner once a year, for Thanksgiving, while two ate together generally on Sundays. Two usually ate meals as a family each night, unless there was an outside activity that prevented it, such as the child working. There was only one student who ate meals together as a family daily. Each of these kids felt that their family mealtime was normal and those who did not eat together did not seem to mind, which a person can assume that is because it has become their normal routine and they know nothing different. This is an alarming trend considering the repercussions from families not spending quality time together, generally around the dinner table. But, there are solutions to this problem and ways to reverse this trend.

Children model our behavior. If parents don’t perceive something such as healthy eating and quality time with our children important, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that it is not something that they will perceive as important. Family meals should be dynamic, nutritious, interesting, and a habit. There are many ways to ensure this:

Keep meals simple
Have everybody help with the cooking
Sit down and slow down for mealtime
Don’t eat in the car
Eat together as a family if going to a restaurant
Avoid confrontations – mealtimes shouldn’t be the time to discipline your children
Give praise and invite conversation with your children
Tell family stories; build identity and culture within your family
Don’t answer the phone during mealtime
Cook in bulk so you don’t have to cook each day
Ask children for meal suggestions to involve them
Make time to eat together as a family

Purchase ready-made sauces or marinade and add it to sauteed chicken, beef or shrimp for a tasty main course.

Order pizza and make a salad, then watch a movie or play games together as a family.

The benefits of taking the time to gather the family for a meal will be a worthwhile investment in any family and enrich everyone’s lives. Another way to build a strong bond within a family if dinner isn’t an option is to have breakfast together; this can give a good start to a child’s day with a healthy breakfast. Research has proven that breakfast kick-starts your metabolism, helps you concentrate and perform better in school or at work.

As stated earlier, today’s families are busier than ever and this makes having quality time with your children even more important in today’s society. There are multiple ways to maintain a healthy relationship with your children as well as your spouse. It makes no difference if dinner is with both parents or one, or even with extended family members, nor does it matter if it is dinner. The meal can be breakfast or lunch, whichever fits the families schedules the best. Having a family breakfast can be a wonderful start to a busy day. The main idea is to allot time for the family to communicate and form a strong bond. Eating together will improve children’s manners, provide intimacy as well as create a secure environment for teenagers.

Eating meals together is important for a child’s development and self-esteem outside of the home, gives the child confidence and teaches them how to behave with others. Eating together enables parents to see what their child is eating and if they finish their food, this may help ward off any upcoming eating disorders or other emotional problems the child may have.

Families who eat together on a regular basis tend to eat healthier by eating more fruit, dark-green vegetables and drink less soft drinks. Children feel more positive about themselves and their family, they are less likely to smoke, use drugs or alcohol, or become depressed and more likely to do well in school and develop better relationships with their peers.

Schools and community organizations should also be encouraged to make it easier for families to have shared mealtimes on a regular basis. Help organize events that would include the whole family being together. If meals are hard to pull together because of work, plan a family night for games, puzzles, read a story or watch a movie. Order pizza, or have a bowl of ice-cream, something that will bring the family together for even one-half hour will be beneficial.

More importantly, remember that children mimic their parents, if the parents do not care enough to make time to be with their children for mealtime or any other time, then don’t be surprised if the child seeks attention from someone or something else to fill that void in their life.

A relaxed family meal is the perfect time to teach kids, not just about manners, but about personal and spiritual beliefs, values and lessons we want them to learn (Knight, 2002). It is a great time to give your child your undivided attention, which lets them know you care about how they feel, their concerns, passions, and who their friends are. Mealtimes can be a time to quell a child’s fears about current events, make plans for family vacations, or what you plan on doing for the weekend. Lifestyles make it difficult but eating together as a family is important to begin from a young age and becomes particularly important for the physical and emotional health of teens. Even if you order pizza and eat off paper plates, the time spent together as a family will always be time well spent.