ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Back to the future? Children living in poverty, early childhoodcentres and mathematics education

Tamsin Meaney

Accepted: 23 March 2014

� FIZ Karlsruhe 2014

Abstract The present call for structured mathematics

programmes in preschools continues a trend from the

nineteenth century, in which young children’s lack of

mathematical knowledge was considered to have a detri-

mental effect on their individual futures and those of the

wider society. In this paper, an investigation of the phi-

losophies behind several early childhood programmes

shows that there is a long-standing acceptance that those

not living in poverty should make decisions about the

education, including the mathematics education, that chil-

dren who are living in poverty should engage in. Conse-

quently, the philosophies behind these programmes, and

with them the advocated mathematics education, contribute

to a homogenised view of the child. This fails to recognise

the attributes that children and their communities have and

situates those living in poverty as being deviant. The strong

promotion in this century of structured mathematics edu-

cation programmes is solidifying this homogenising pro-

cess in a manner not seen in previous early childhood

programmes.

1 Introduction

This issue of ZDM is dedicated to exploring neglected

aspects of the relationship between mathematics

achievement and socio-economic status. One such aspect is

the contribution that the emphasis given to this relationship

makes to the homogenisation of the child and the problems

that this invokes, particularly for young children from low

socio-economic backgrounds. Although the rhetoric around

the need for children living in poverty to attend early

childhood centres has been consistently about providing

them with a better future and thus one of social justice and

equity, the requirement for conformity in order to achieve

this better future remains under-recognised. Consistently

over time, early childhood mathematics education pro-

grammes have required children living in poverty to take

on the knowledge and skills of middle-class children. This

leads to the acceptance of the need for a homogenised child

whose attributes are decided by those not living in poverty.

As Popkewitz (2009) stated: ‘‘the reform impulses for

equity embodies and produces inequities and exclusions’’

(p. 303) and this is what is explored here.

Early childhood programmes which originated in Europe

or the USA have spread to many other countries. Although

this movement has resulted in some distortions, the

requirement for children to become acceptable school stu-

dents and future workers is a common feature of all pro-

grammes, especially for children living in poverty. A US

expert, James Sparling, recently commented in Australia:

Well there are children in poverty, children from teen

parents, children of low birth weight, children who

suffer social isolation. But if you have a number of

those factors in your background then the odds are

that you’re not going to be as likely as most other

children to live up to your potential. So you’re going

to underachieve which is what nobody wants to

happen. (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/

2011/s3353027.htm)

Throughout history and across the world, different names have been

given to institutions set up outside of homes for the care and

education of young children (Haddad 2002). To overcome this

confusion, the term early childhood centres has been adopted.

T. Meaney (&)

Malmo University, Malmo, Sweden

e-mail: tamsin.meaney@mah.se

123

ZDM Mathematics Education

DOI 10.1007/s11858-014-0578-y

His suggestion was to place these children in early

childhood centres as soon as possible after they were born.

This and similar suggestions contribute to a sense that we

are going ‘‘back to the future’’ because when they are

contrasted with the following one made about the Infant

Schools of the 1820s, the similarities are striking:

In the case of poor and immigrant families, the

reformers usually portrayed the infant school as a

substitute for unsatisfactory parents and an inade-

quate home environment. (Vinovskis 1993, p. 157)

Consequently, the belief that the evils of poverty, which

has come to include under-achievement in mathematics, can

be eradicated by children attending early childhood centres is

a Western cultural belief with a long history. Samuelsson and

Carlsson (2008) stated: ‘‘it is also interesting to notice that

Frobel, Montessori and High/scope pedagogies all have their

ground in a compensatory way of thinking, since the target

groups have been children at risk or from low income

homes’’ (p. 629, italics in original). By exploring this history,

it is possible not just to see how this cultural belief has arisen

but also to see how it continues to situate children living in

poverty as being different from the normal. In particular, the

role that mathematics education has within these pro-

grammes is explored to see how it has become complicit

in situating children living in poverty as being ‘‘abnormal’’.

2 The care and education of young children living

in poverty

To understand how mathematics education has become

embroiled in the belief that early childhood programmes

can overcome the evils of poverty, there is a need for a

theoretical frame for analysing similarities and differences

across time and location. In similar research, May (2006)

used the concept of gaze to describe how society viewed

the provision of early childhood centres: ‘‘These gazes are

broad rationales framing the pedagogical and political

consensus necessary for new policy paradigms’’ (p. 252).

From the eighteenth century, she suggested that six dif-

ferent gazes had affected the provision of early childhood

centres. These gazes were:

• Eighteenth century, survival gaze

• Nineteenth century, moral gaze

• Early twentieth century, physical gaze

• Mid-twentieth century, psychological gaze

• Late-1960s, equity gaze

• Late-1990s, economic gaze

Although gaze is useful in understanding differences

over time, May (2006) concentrated on what supported

significant policy shifts in New Zealand. In contrast, I

investigate how mathematics education was connected to

the philosophies behind early childhood programmes and

how these changed when they travelled to other places.

Therefore, rather than use May’s idea of gaze, I analyse

several prominent early childhood programmes—Infant

Schools, Kindergartens, Nursery Schools, Children’s

Homes, and the more varied late twentieth, early twenty-

first century models—from the perspective of the care and

education that they aimed to provide.

The intertwining of care and education in early child-

hood programmes is long-standing (Haddad 2002). ‘‘‘Care’

suggests custodial physical caregiving, supervision and

affectionate nurturing, whereas ‘education’ suggests plan-

ned activities designed to enhance children’s learning’’

(Smith et al. 2000, p. 11). However, care can be considered

as having both physical and moral components. The phys-

ical care of children, who are perceived as being too young

to look after themselves, continues to have a major role in

early childhood centres. If parents are to work, then

someone else must look after their children. Moral care, on

the other hand, is related to the shaping of children in

society-desired directions, particularly, as May (2006) sta-

ted: ‘‘the inculcation of moral habits and order amongst the

poor’’ (p. 252). Therefore, the emergence of early childhood

centres can be said to occur alongside the acceptance that

such institutions had not just the right, but the obligation, to

determine the appropriate care, and education, for young

children. The following quote is an example of this:

Thus at home and abroad Government, Churches,

Sects and Powers that Be, are determined to lay hands

on the young and change them for the better.

But what is the nature of the changes which all

statesmen, politicians and sectarians desire to effect?

… Much is made of the ‘‘religious question,’’ and

something of foreign competition, and the national

place of the workers in the world market; but grad-

ually as we listen and read popular speeches and

articles the truth is borne home to us that the word

‘‘education’’ has a widely different meaning for dif-

ferent writers and speakers. (McMillan 1904, p. 2)

Although the education of children living in poverty is seen

as having significant advantages for the children themselves,

the benefits for society are often prominent in the philosophies

behind early childhood programmes. Consequently, education

should be considered, not as planned activities, but as pro-

viding benefits for the individual and society (Kemmis and

Mutton 2012). For example, in the nineteenth century, the

education provided to young children introduced them to the

necessary skills for their later working life. As they only

attended for a few years before their own working life began or

they were needed to care for younger siblings, gaining the basic

T. Meaney

123

skills for work was a priority (Prochner and Kabiru 2008).

More recently, Barnett (1995) stated that although it would be

very expensive for US governments to provide early childhood

programmes to children, ‘‘these costs would be offset over time

by reductions in social problems that cost society far more each

year’’ (p. 46).

By concentrating on what was said about the care and edu-

cation that young children should receive in different pro-

grammes, it is also possible to see how commentators, including

researchers, gained the right to make judgements about what is

best for children identified as at risk of growing up to be poor

adults. Acceptance of this perspective contributes to those liv-

ing in poverty being pathologised as being abnormal:

The history of poverty research and policy making in

the UK and elsewhere has been characterised by

repeated attempts to construct those affecting poverty

and disadvantage as a group apart from ‘‘normal’’ and

‘‘mainstream’’ society; almost as a distinctive sub-

grouping of the population.

From the mid to late nineteenth century, where the

most poverty stricken were classified as dangerous,

deviant and disreputable, through to the renewed

concern with ‘‘troubled families’’ in the 2000s, the

framing of poverty through a binary divide between

‘‘them’’ suffering poverty and ‘‘us’’ who are not has

been almost ever present.

This is particularly the case as a dimension of the

presentation and representation of poverty and those

experiencing poverty by influential sections of soci-

ety, including among politicians, policy makers,

academics and researchers, and also including

important sections of the media. (Mooney 2012)

As a consequence of the long-standing emphasis on the dual

role of care and education of young children in early childhood

centres, I analyse the philosophies behind different pro-

grammes by identifying what was said about these two roles

and how this was connected to the mathematics education

provided. Such an approach allows for a comparison of simi-

larities and differences between different programmes over

time and across locations that contributes to understanding

how those living in poverty are situated as needing to be nor-

malised so that undesirable traits can be eradicated.

3 Investigating the philosophies behind early childhood

programmes

In the next sections, the philosophies for the different

programmes are discussed in relationship to the care and

education considered necessary for young children. The

analysed programmes all originated in Western Europe or

the USA, but have had significant effect on early childhood

centres outside the countries of origin. Where possible,

documents written by the instigators of the programmes

have been examined. In the case of Frobel and Montessori,

contemporary translations in English are used. Secondary

sources describe the broader contexts of these early

childhood centres and sometimes provide examples on the

related mathematics education. Extensive quotes are used

to illustrate the data from which the analysis was made.

As stated earlier, conceptions of the moral care that

young children need are connected to conceptions of the

education necessary to develop the good that the individual

and the society should gain from young children attending

early childhood centres. Therefore, it is not always possible

to clearly distinguish between moral care and the two

components of education.

Each section begins with the background to establishing

the programme. Its philosophy and information about what

changes occurred when the programme moved countries is

described. Then the mathematics education connected to

each programme is discussed. At the end of each section, a

table summarises perceptions of the care and education

needed by young children.

4 Robert Owen—infant schools

In 1816, a social reformer, Robert Owen, began an infant

school in Scotland for his mill workers’ children so that

they could be kept out of the mill and be given an educa-

tion (Saracho and Spodek 2009). Although this was

10 years after Sir Robert Peel had instigated a law to

reduce children’s working hours to twelve hours a day and

to ensure they received some education, factory owners

were likely to flout the law (Gordon 1994) and so Owen

came to be seen as a social reformer.

The provision of infant schools was part of Owen’s

wider plan to reorganise society, based on a co-operation

principle. Owen considered that, as rational beings, people

were capable of making decisions without relying on reli-

gion, and so learning to read and write was not as important

as character building. Nevertheless, although he advocated

the need for children to be happy, happiness was to come

through docility (Gordon 1994). Owen’s philosophy can be

seen in the following extract from his manifesto for

potential investors in his new community:

The objects intended to be accomplished by which

are, first, to obtain for the children, from the age of

two to five, a playground, in which they may be

easily superintended, and their young minds properly

Back to the future?

123

directed, while the time of the parents will be much

more usefully occupied, both for themselves and the

establishment. This part of the plan arose from

observing, that the tempers of children among the

lower orders are generally spoiled, and vicious habits

strongly formed, previous to the time when they are

usually sent to school; and, to create the characters

desired, these must be prevented, or as much as

possible counteracted. (Owen 1812, p. 10)

In this manifesto, Owen positioned himself as knowing

what was best for these children. By identifying that chil-

dren needed supervision, so that their parents could work

unhindered, Owen acknowledges the importance of phys-

ical care. Children also required moral care because they

became ‘‘spoiled’’ and had ‘‘vicious habits’’ if left to their

own devices before beginning school. Consequently, they

needed to be educated early, before they developed these

inappropriate habits and dispositions (Vinovskis 1993).

Thus, from his perspective, by eradicating deviant behav-

iour, infant schools benefited both the children themselves

and the wider society.

By 1825, there were more than 55 infant schools

throughout the British Isles (Saracho and Spodek 2009).

They became part of a wider social experiment that led

Owen to set up communities in the USA, although these

eventually failed. Also, infant schools were set up there by

others, but these were attended by children from middle-

class families (Balfanz 1999). However, with the failure of

the communities, infant schools almost completely

disappeared.

Others took the concept of infant schools, although in a

Christianised format, to other countries (White and Buka

1987), including British colonies, for the benefit of Indig-

enous children and the children of poor settlers (Prochner

et al. 2009). These children were singled out as needing

adjustment to their characters and thus would benefit from

such an education. However, as was the case of Infant

Schools set up in London, the education provided in these

infant schools became more regimented and disciplined

and so was distorted from Owen’s original intentions

(White and Buka 1987).

Owen’s curriculum was broader than the 3 Rs (Reading,

wRiting and aRithmetic) and included singing, dancing and

outdoor activities. Arithmetic remained a focus, as it had in

earlier forms of early childhood centres (Saracho and

Spodek 2009). It was linked firmly to the working classes,

as grammar and public schools did not teach it or mathe-

matics, as these were considered as subjects for merchants

(Howson 1974). Arithmetic in infant schools was influ-

enced by the simultaneous advent of books promoting its

teaching through manipulation of objects and mental cal-

culations (Balfanz 1999). Gordon (1994) quoted a girl who

had attended one of Owen’s schools in the United States:

‘‘I remember that there were blackboards covering one side

of the schoolroom, and that we had wires, with balls on

them, by which we learnt to count’’ (p. 288). In Britain,

small blocks of wood were used to help children learn to

count. Concrete materials from nature were to be combined

with children’s own curiosity to guide their learning. Thus,

children were expected to learn from manipulating objects.

The need for children to understand, rather than learn by

rote, can be seen as being connected to Owen’s belief in the

rationality of humans but also to the need for children to

become workers.

Table 1 presents the relationship between the mathe-

matics education in infant schools as contributing to both

the care and education of the children who attended them.

5 Friedrich Frobel—kindergartens

In direct opposition to Owen’s belief in the need for people

to be rationally driven, Frobel, who began his first kin-

dergarten in 1837, advocated that early childhood pro-

grammes based on children’s own interests should develop

an understanding of the relationship between God, nature

and humankind (Saracho and Spodek 2009). A family

could not provide the necessary insights into this rela-

tionship as ‘‘God, not prejudiced men, gave to genuine

educators their vocation’’ (Froebel 1885, p. 206).

The societal good that came from education was the

‘‘development of humanity’’, through individuals having a

relationship with God:

Table 1 Care, education and

mathematics education in infant

schools

Care Mathematics education Education

Physical Children needed to

be supervised

Arithmetic was taught using

concrete materials from

nature and built on

children’s own curiosity

Children needed to become

rational human beings

who were docile and

obedient

Good for

the

individual

Moral Young children

should not grow

up to have

undesirable

characters

Children were teachable

when they began school

and their parents could

focus on their work

Good for

the

society

T. Meaney

123

By these the school and the instruction should lead

the boy to a threefold but single recognition of him-

self in all respects, and thus to the recognition of man

in general, according to his nature and relations: to

the recognition of God, the eternal condition, the

eternal cause, and the eternal fount of his being and

of the being of all things; to the recognition of Nature

and the outer world as proceeding from and limited

by the spiritual.

The instruction and the school should lead man to a

life and course of conduct in accord with this three-

fold yet single recognition. The school and the

instruction should lead the boy by this threefold,

single recognition, from inclination to will, from

activity of will to firmness of will, and, thus con-

stantly advancing, to the attainment of his destiny, his

vocation, to the attainment of his earthly perfection.

(Froebel 1885, p. 86)

Nevertheless, earthly perfection that children were to

gain did not really allow for variety: all children were

expected to have the same destiny.

However, 14 years after the first kindergarten was

opened, the Prussian authorities considered Frobel to be

associating with the 1848 revolutionary activities (White

and Buka 1987) and banned kindergartens as ‘‘centres of

atheism and subversion’’ (May 2006, p. 248). This ban

remained in force for 8 years, during which time the kin-

dergarten movement spread world-wide, with many Ger-

mans emigrating to the United States and elsewhere.

However, by the beginning of the twentieth century, in

many English-speaking countries, kindergartens had

become incorporated into schools or dropped as being too

old-fashioned in their ideas (White and Buka 1987).

The first kindergartens were attended by children from

different class backgrounds (Haddad 2002). However,

when kindergartens were established in other countries,

they were seen as necessary for children living in poverty.

In Sweden, kindergartens were attended by children from

the lower classes, continuing a tradition begun with the

Christianised version of infant schools (Ekstrand 2000). In

New Zealand, ‘‘Government interest was limited to kin-

dergartens, whose programmes fitted with the rationales for

emerging state investment and/or intervention in the lives

of children such as moral reform, child rescue and child

health’’ (May 2001, p. 2). Kindergartens promised ‘‘to save

and rescue children; to teach them good moral and work

‘habits’; and to cure crime and social ills’’ (May 2006,

p. 254). In these kindergartens, far from Frobel’s direct

influence, concern for young children’s relationship with

God was replaced by a concern for their material contri-

bution to society and so that they became morally sound.

Although Frobel had set himself up as knowing what was

best for children, the movement to other countries allowed

governments to take over this role. This became more

obvious when kindergartens were subsumed into schools.

Frobel based his ideas about what children should be

taught on his observations of their play (Balfanz 1999)

and strongly emphasised mathematical content (Samuels-

son and Carlsson 2008). In kindergartens, learning was

based on materials (‘‘gifts’’) and activities (‘‘occupa-

tions’’). The ‘‘gifts took young children on an increasingly

abstract progression that explored the properties of three

dimensions (the cube), two dimensions (the plane), the

line and the point’’ (Balfanz 1999, p. 5). Occupations

‘‘included such activities as paper weaving, paper folding,

paper cutting, sewing, drawing, painting, and clay mod-

elling’’ (Saracho and Spodek 2009, p. 31). In his book,

The Education of Man, Frobel promoted the learning of

numbers, including understanding differences between

odd and even numbers as well as several geometrical

ideas (see Fig. 1).

All activities were designed to promote meditation on

the children’s relationship with God. However, the manner

in which activities were laid out meant that learning was

unlikely to occur unless teachers understood the mathe-

matical background of the activities (Doverborg 2006). As

well, the gifts and occupations could be subsumed into

earlier models of early childhood centres which focused on

preparing children for school and work (Prochner and

Kabiru 2008).

In Table 2, physical care can be seen as not specified in

Frobel’s philosophy for kindergartens. Given that the moral

care and education of young children was Frobel’s main

aim, this is perhaps not surprising. Nevertheless, given that

the first kindergarten ‘‘catered for children aged 1–7 from

different socio-economic backgrounds, and was open daily

from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.’’ (Haddad 2002, p. 18), chil-

dren’s physical care was a consideration.

6 Margaret McMillan—nursery schools

Margaret McMillan with her sister, Rachel, began nursery

schools in the early twentieth century for children who

were ‘‘economically destitute’’ (Prochner and Kabiru 2008,

p. 121). For McMillan, poverty resulted in people being

driven from living the ‘‘outgoing life of civilised human-

ity’’ (1919, p. 13) and nursery schools could contribute to

changing this outcome. She felt that Britain at this time was

lacking a creative population.

Unlike Frobel, who was primarily interested in chil-

dren’s moral care, McMillan (1904) was concerned with

caring for young children’s physical health as well as

developing their imagination by promoting play. She was

Back to the future?

123

influenced by the work of Frobel but considered his

methods too intrusive on children’s experiencing the world.

Nursery schools were supposed to resemble a ‘‘quasi-

domestic setting to improve on home life: healthier and

more stimulating of the imagination, in the company of

peers and under the direction of a trained teacher’’

(Prochner and Kabiru 2008, p. 121). These settings were to

replicate wealthy children’s day nurseries and included

feeding and bathing. The need for poor children to attend

these nursery schools was set out by McMillan in the

preface to her 1919 book, The Nursery School:

The fate of vast numbers of little children given over to

all the dangers and horrors of the streets, and in homes

where no real nurture is possible, was brought very forcibly

before us this autumn, when after a holiday we found that

one-third of all our nursery children were diseased, and

obliged to spend a week at the clinic ere they could come

back to our school. We set about the treatment and resto-

ration of the few. This book was written in order to urge the

nation to set vigorously about the salvation of the many. (p.

7)

In this quote, McMillan positioned herself as knowing

what was best for children living in poverty, whilst

simultaneously urging the wider community to adopt her

view and act accordingly. Poor families were positioned as

not being able to care appropriately for their children.

When nursery schools were imported to other countries,

they were no longer exclusively for children living in

poverty. In the USA, some nursery schools enrolled mid-

dle-class children or were connected to universities for

research purposes (White and Buka 1987). It was not until

the Depression that nursery schools in the USA again

focused on children living in poverty.

In nursery schools, subjects such as arithmetic were to

be left until the children were older. McMillan (1919)

stated that ‘‘form and numbers appears to develop later,

and to be present hardly at all before the fifth year and to

make a great step forward only somewhere about the

ninth’’ (p. 122). However, she went on to state how ‘‘tod-

dlers’ finger games are the beginning, among other things,

of mathematics’’ (p. 123). A chapter in her book described

ways in which counting could be introduced to children in

a playful manner. Then:

having a store of number memories, they begin to

visualise. That is, the imagination is awake and

active. The drill for speed can now be done. The

teacher sitting opposite the children with their work

in sight will say ‘‘Put down six-ten-five. Put down six

and take up five. Put down six twos. Two threes,’’ and

so on. And now having given such practice as will

Table 2 Care, education and

mathematics education in

kindergartens

Care Mathematics education Education

Physical Unspecified Learning about numbers,

including differences between

odd and even numbers as well

as several geometrical ideas

Achieved with the

attainment of earthly

perfection

Good for

the

individual

Moral To ensure that

children

developed a

relationship with

God

Humanity was

enhanced when

individuals had a

relationship with God

Good for

the

society

Fig. 1 Frobel’s (1885, p. 240) instructions on how to teach even and

odd numbers

T. Meaney

123

help the imagination she can give up the stones

altogether and ask, ‘‘How many twos in six?’’ (p.

125).

Thus, mathematics education was to be a contributor to

the development of the imagination, but mathematical

ideas were not to be forced on children. From play, chil-

dren would learn about their own capabilities and become

creative individuals through the use of their imaginations.

These were necessary skills for work, and in developing

them both the individual and the society would benefit.

Table 3 provides a summary of the care, education and

mathematics education provided in nursery schools.

Although nursery schools did not spread as far as other early

childhood programmes, the focus on play as the basis for

learning and the reluctance to force children to engage in

formal subject learning became prominent in the provision of

early childhood centres throughout the twentieth century.

7 Maria Montessori—children’s homes

There are many similarities between Margaret McMillan’s

and Maria Montessori’s approaches (DuCharme 1992).

Both were influenced by Frobel, and both felt that ensuring

that children were well-fed was a necessary first stage in

their learning and encouraged the involvement of parents in

their children’s engagement in early childhood centres. For

example, Montessori (1912) stated that ‘‘a ‘Biographical

Chart’, which, filled for the mother by the directress and

the doctor, gives her the most practical knowledge of her

child’s growth and condition’’ (p. 65).

Maria Montessori’s work with young children began

when she was given the care of children from Rome’s

slums who were left unattended while their parents worked.

She saw this work as having a moral purpose:

In Quarters where poverty and vice ruled, a work of

moral redemption is going on. The soul of the people

is being set free from the torpor of vice, from the

shadows of ignorance. The little children too have a

‘‘House’’ of their own. The new generation goes

forward to meet the new era, the time when misery

shall no longer be deplored but destroyed. (Montes-

sori 1912, p. 48)

Whereas McMillan was concerned with developing

children’s imagination, Montessori’s (1949) interest was in

developing their personalities. Her experiences of living

through both world wars convinced her that education had

to make a difference, not just for the children when they

became adults but for the peace of the world. From her

perspective, ‘‘[school] education today does not form an

intelligence capable of visualising the epoch and the

problems of the times in which they live’’ (1949, p. 12). In

The Absorbent Mind, Montessori (1949) discussed how

when children were supplied with activities that engaged

them then ‘‘so-called bad traits, the so-called good and the

so-called superior, all disappeared and only one type of

child appeared with none of the traits I have described’’ (p.

279). For her the differences between rich and poor also

would be eradicated: ‘‘whether I am rich or poor does not

matter if I can reach full expression, the economic problem

will then adjust itself’’ (p. 407). Thus although children

were to reach their own potential, this was likely to con-

tribute to them becoming similar and the differences that

they brought with them were to be eradicated.

Nevertheless, her observations of children had made her

respect their ability to determine their own lives (Montes-

sori 1912). Rather than choosing the ‘‘best’’ method for

educating them, she based her pedagogy on her own

observations of them and children with mental disabilities.

Her success with children with intellectual disabilities had

made her question whether the typical schooling methods

were the most beneficial to learning. Therefore, like

McMillan (1904), her understanding of pedagogy was that

if a method worked with children who were extreme cases,

then it was likely to work with more ‘‘normal’’ children.

This situates children living in poverty as being abnormal.

Montessori, therefore, justified her right to make judge-

ments about what was best for these children from a

research basis, her observations of the children themselves.

Research rather than opinion began to be used for deter-

mining what was appropriate for children living in poverty.

Table 3 Care, education and

mathematics education in

nursery schools

Care Mathematics education Education

Physical Physical care such as

bathing and feeding

were provided

The learning of

mathematics was to be

done in a playful manner

that would provoke the

imagination but should

not be forced on children

Development of the

imagination

Good for

the

individual

Moral Nursery schools aimed to

support those living in

poverty to live

‘‘outgoing life of

civilised humanity’’

(McMillan 1919, p. 13)

Imagination

contributed to a

creative nation

which was perceived

as lacking at this

time

Good for

the

society

Back to the future?

123

Initially, children’s homes were not established in other

countries with the same enthusiasm as earlier programmes

(White and Buka 1987). However, advocates such as Fisher

(1912), who wrote about her experiences with Montessori

in Rome and Montessori’s extensive lecturing tours—she

sat out World War II in India, where she had been lecturing

when hostilities were declared—resulted in her early

childhood programmes being adopted all over the world.

However, as with nursery schools, when these programmes

moved countries, they were attended generally by children

of middle-class families.

The teacher’s role in these programmes was to provide

different experiences, but not to teach. For children to

reach their potential, activities needed to support them to

become self-sufficient. Balfanz (1999) described Montes-

sori’s methods as:

In many respects like Froebel’s deeply mathematical

in nature. Almost all of her ‘‘sensory methods’’ were

built around comparisons and the exploration and

identification of patterns, variables, sameness, and

differences. Like Froebel, Montessori also introduced

children to complex geometric shapes at an early age.

(p. 7)

Mathematics learning thus becomes part of developing

children’s potential through play. Teachers would lay out

materials and offer activities to children, but it was up to

the children to decide what they should do (Montessori

1912) (see Fig. 2). The only requirement was that they had

to use the materials in the prescribed way.

Table 4 provides a summary of the care, education and

mathematics education aspects of Montessori’s children’s

homes. As can be seen, there are many similarities with

McMillan’s nursery schools in regard to the philosophies

behind the care and education that children living in pov-

erty should receive. Although Montessori’s approach

included specific mathematical tasks, children still con-

trolled whether or not they engaged—which is similar to

McMillan’s belief that children should be provided with

playful mathematical tasks but not forced to participate.

8 After the second world war

As the twentieth century progressed, following the work of

McMillan and Montessori, play came to have a more

prominent role and the focus shifted to caring for children’s

psychological needs. Mathematics fell into the background

and it was not until the end of the twentieth century that its

role in early childhood centres began to be given promi-

nence once more. Nevertheless, the trend begun with

Montessori in justifying with research what children should

experience in early childhood programmes was solidified.

Following the second world war, in Western countries

such as New Zealand, mothers were expected to stay home

and care for their children with only a few centres available

for those mothers who, due to circumstances, had to work

(May 2006). Nevertheless, early childhood centres had a

role in preparing children for school so they learnt how to

get along with others through playing together (May 2006),

but did not include the formal learning of academic sub-

jects. This was partly done in response to societalFig. 2 Using building blocks in a Montessori programme (from

Fisher 1912, p. 57)

Table 4 Care, education and

mathematics education in

children’s homes

Care Mathematics education Education

Physical Feeding children so

they were not

hungry was the

first stage of

learning

Material was provided to

children in a set order but

children had the control

over whether or not to

engage

Children’s personalities

were to be developed to

their full expression

Good for

the

individual

Moral Freeing children

from poverty and

ignorance was

important

Children who grew up with

clear vision would

contribute to the

prevention of disasters

such as wars

Good for

the

society

T. Meaney

123

perceptions about what a healthy child was. May (2001)

cited the New Zealand Minister for Education from 1944

who stated:

What is of supreme importance is that the young child

should be healthy and happy, that he should learn to work

and play with other children, that his mind should be kept

lively and eager and full of wonder, and that he should lay

the basis of good habits and attitudes from which all

healthy growth in later life must spring. (pp. 4–5)

Limiting formal learning in preschools was supported to

some extent by the work of Piaget (1962), who considered

children to not have the mental capabilities to solve

problems logically, even with concrete materials, until they

were 7 or 8 years old. Thus, it did not make sense for

children to learn arithmetic before this age (Holloway et al.

1995).

From the 1960s, concerns about cultural deprivation

impinging on children’s intellectual development led to the

setting up of early childhood centres for those believed to

be most ‘‘at risk’’. In the United States, Head Start was one

such programme (Arnold et al. 2002). Its aims were:

1. Improving the child’s physical health and physical

abilities.

2. Helping the emotional and social development of the

child by encouraging self-confidence, spontaneity,

curiosity and self-discipline.

3. Improving the child’s mental processes and skills, with

particular attention to conceptual and verbal skills.

4. Establishing patterns and expectations of success for

the child that will create a climate of confidence for

future learning efforts.

5. Increasing the child’s capacity to relate positively to

family members and others, while at the same time

strengthening the family’s ability to relate positively to

the child and his problems.

6. Developing in the child and his family a responsible

attitude toward society, and encouraging society to

work with the poor in solving their problems.

7. Increasing the sense of dignity and self-worth within

the child and his family.

(Richmond et al. 1979, p. 138, cited in White and Buka

1987, p. 66)

This list of aims suggests that programme promoters

considered that the deficits from living in poverty could be

overcome by directly interfering in children’s lives by both

caring for their physical needs and also by encouraging

their families to adopt a ‘‘more responsible attitude toward

society’’. These aims continue a trend from earlier pro-

grammes, such as nursery schools and children’s homes, in

which parents were expected to learn how to work with

their children so they adopted more middle-class attitudes

to health and education. At the same time, the aims

indicated, perhaps for the first time, that society needed to

listen to how those living in poverty saw their own prob-

lems. Nevertheless, parents of children living in poverty

were expected to recognise that they had problems to solve.

It was also the first time that educational gains were

measured through testing (Vinovskis 1993), although the

results of this testing showed that the impact of Head Start

programmes on African American children’s intellectual

development appeared to be limited (Currie and Thomas

1995). Generally, the expected normalisation of these

children’s intellectual development was not achieved.

Barnett (1995) noted considerable differences between

Head Start programmes in different parts of the USA,

making it difficult to describe the mathematics education

provided to children attending them. Although the aims

were general, funding and implementation differed across

programmes. Thus, no table can be produced that sum-

marises this section.

9 Early childhood programmes, mathematics

education and the twenty-first century

In the last 15 years, the focus of early childhood centres on

supporting children to learn through play has been replaced

in some countries by a more formal preparation for school.

Whereas, previously, mathematics education programmes

had been based on the philosophy behind early childhood

programmes, in this century the direction of influence is

reversed with the results of mathematics education research

now affecting perceptions of the relevance of established

philosophies behind early childhood programmes, such as

that academic learning should be left till children are older.

This change arose from the converging of several ideas.

Having adults out of the work force is considered prob-

lematic for a society which provides welfare. Therefore, it

is accepted that early childhood programmes should care

for children so their parents can work (Blau and Currie

2006). Early childhood programmes still include a concern

for children’s health, but now focus more on their cognitive

development.

Observation scales have been used to determine that

early childhood centres provided higher quality care than

home-based care for children living in poverty (Loeb et al.

2004). Carers with education levels greater than high

school were more likely to provide interactions that sup-

ported children’s cognitive growth. Siraj-Blatchford et al.

(2008) stated: ‘‘The EPPE study provided the first robust

evidence of the positive effects of pre-school education in

the UK, showing that high quality pre-school education

could help to alleviate the effects of social disadvantage

and could provide children with a better start to school’’ (p.

24).

Back to the future?

123

As well, there is a realisation that children’s mathe-

matical understanding on entering school is a close deter-

miner of their later school success (Arnold et al. 2002) and

that children are capable of dealing with mathematical

ideas at a much earlier age. Anthony and Walshaw (2009)

documented that young children could engage with math-

ematical ideas such as ‘‘enumeration, simple arithmetic,

representation, problem solving, measurement and spatial

skills, geometric knowledge and logic in a range of cir-

cumstances’’ (p. 107). The trend begun with Montessori of

basing early childhood programmes on research has been

vigorously adopted by mathematics education research.

This change in perceptions about mathematics education

in early childhood programmes has contributed to the

belief that mathematical under-achievement is a societal ill

which needs to be rectified. In discussing Australian edu-

cational outcomes, Marginson (2002) stated: ‘‘no doubt the

inequalities at the early learning stage also feed into the

dispersal of student achievement scores in science and

maths, which is less equal than in Western Europe, Korea

and Japan’’ (p. 42).

Consequently, learning mathematics in early childhood

centres is promoted as important for children living in

poverty who could be disadvantaged for life without it

(Arnold et al. 2002; Starkey et al. 2004; Ramani and Sie-

gler 2011). As a result, structured mathematical pro-

grammes, which presume that children progress in a similar

manner, have sprung up globally, although most strongly in

the United States. Building Blocks is one such programme

and is based on research about learning trajectories. Sarama

and Clements (2004) found that teachers who understood

the learning trajectories were better able to provide

‘‘informal, incidental mathematics at an appropriate and

deep level’’ (p. 188). In Australia, Papic et al. (2011)

implemented an intervention programme on repeating and

spatial patterning in one preschool over a 6-month period.

Children were grouped according to how they performed

on an initial diagnostic interview and then provided with

tasks for their level through a combination of individual

and group time. Children progressed to the next level if

they showed competency at their current level. Papic et al.

(2011) found that, after 1 year at school, the children

performed better on a general numeracy assessment than

children from a control group. Although similar to

Montessori’s structured programmes, unlike Montessori’s

philosophy children do not have options for not

participating.

For children living in poverty, involvement in these

structured programmes is likely to contribute to them

arriving at school with greater mathematical understand-

ings. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about the

labelling of children based on an assessment of their

mathematical performance (Anthony and Walshaw 2009).

As well, poor quality schooling could reduce the likelihood

that these academic advantages will be sustained (Currie

and Thomas 1995). However, regardless of such concerns,

it seems that in this century, early childhood programmes,

as were their predecessors before them, are considered to

benefit children living in poverty and the wider society.

As was the case in the previous section, there is a

plethora of different programmes on offer in the twenty-first

century, making a summary difficult. However, it seems

that expectations about young children needing a more

formal preparation for school are becoming accepted across

the world. This is seen as a way of fixing the ills perceived

by society as likely to occur if young children living in

poverty do not receive this education. Thus, mathematics

education research has contributed both to identifying that a

lack of mathematical achievement would be a problem to

society and providing the solution to this problem.

10 Care, education and the homogenised child

It is clear from the examination of different early childhood

programmes that views on care and education, as well as

mathematics education, have changed. Nevertheless, three

themes can be seen across these programmes:

Children from poor homes required physical care so

their parents could work or because they could not provide

for them.

Moral care was needed because children living in pov-

erty were unlikely to become acceptable human beings

without it. Young children can be more easily moulded

than school-age children.

Mathematics education provided in early childhood

centres reflects the presiding view about the moral care that

young children need.

Differences in the education provided in early childhood

centres, including mathematics education, reflected the

philosophies of the programmes about what young children

should become, but also the presiding morality of the wider

society that often saw those living in poverty as needing to

be fixed in order to become socially acceptable. However,

although many early childhood programmes were designed

for children living in poverty, movement across countries

and through time often resulted in the programmes being

adopted by middle-class families, possibly because they

continued the care and education parents provided at home.

The philosophies of early childhood programmes are

permeated by assumptions about what ‘‘normality’’ is in

regard to children, their childhoods, their families, their

learning and their possibilities for life. Thus, with the

provision of early childhood programmes, including

mathematics education, comes the expectation that all

children would benefit from resembling a ‘‘normal’’ child.

T. Meaney

123

With the continuing focus on fixing children living in

poverty, it can be said that there is a long-standing

acceptance that the care and education of these children

should be decided by others who are more knowledgeable

and more morally aware than the poor themselves. For

example, at the beginning of the twentieth century,

McMillan and Montessori, both of whom came from rel-

atively well-to-do families, provided care to children that

took them off the streets (DuCharme 1992). Recently, it is

the intellectual aspect of young children which is consid-

ered to be neglected and in need of redemption. Research

now has a prominent role in determining what features of

children living in poverty need fixing for the good of

society as well as providing the solutions to this issue. It

seems that rather than providing a critical reflection on the

role of research in the ‘‘abnormalising’’ of these children,

researchers have adopted uncritically the assumption that

they have the right and obligation to do this.

Drawing on the work of Alan Pence (Pence and Nsa-

menang, 2008; Pence and Hix-Small, 2007), I label the

transformation of children living in poverty into ‘‘normal’’

children as the homogenisation of young children. Math-

ematics education, advocated in early childhood pro-

grammes, has been more or less complicit in the

homogenisation process. In the nineteenth century, the

mathematics education that was promoted fitted the moral

view of what children would become and so was less

complicit than the present research-based promotion of

structured mathematics programmes.

The recent expectation that all children should start

school with mathematical knowledge exacerbates the dif-

ferences between children who live in poverty and their

peers. Thus, mathematics programmes based on percep-

tions of a ‘‘normal’’ child and what they should be able to

achieve can result in a lack of recognition and undervaluing

of what children living in poverty bring with them to early

childhood centres. It also fails to recognise the role that

these early assessments have in cementing the view that

children living in poverty are lower achievers (Desert et al.

2009), resulting in some children being labelled as societal

failures even before they begin school.

Yet alternative research is available that queries the

conception of a ‘‘normal’’ child which all children should

become. In 1951, Gilliland proposed that African Ameri-

can babies may have statistically significant higher IQ

scores that their white counterparts because of the social-

isation that they received as a young age from their

extended family. In an investigation of the mathematical

experiences both at home and in early childhood centres,

Aubrey et al. (2003) found that not all children had the

same level of familiarity with play-based learning, the

approach seen as the most appropriate in the early child-

hood centres. Consequently, they stated: ‘‘This means that

early educators may need to re-examine continuously the

way they, as main carers, construe the learning they pro-

mote and value as well as the match of this to their young

charges’ prior experience’’ (p. 103). In regard to the pro-

vision of early childhood centres in Africa, Pence and

Nsamenang (2008) stated: ‘‘Euro-Western childcare and

development approaches are promoted in a manner that

suggests both an ignorance of the other heritages and also a

belief that others are incapable of producing a healthy

adulthood’’ (p. 21).

Pence and Hix-Small (2007) argued that the homogen-

ising of images of children and childhood run counter to

the early history of the provision of early childcare centres

which were ‘‘based in culture, context and diversity’’ (p.

75). I disagree and instead suggest that the history of the

philosophies behind early childhood programmes shows

that moral care in regard to ‘‘normalising’’ children living

in poverty has been prevalent at least for the last 200 years.

Consequently it has pervaded our beliefs about what kind

of mathematics education should be provided and at the

present time has allowed mathematics education to be used

more explicitly as a tool for identifying deviants from the

normal.

The philosophies behind many early childhood pro-

grammes have continuously emphasised its benefits for

children and the wider society, by promoting an equity

agenda for children living in poverty. However, close

examination of these philosophies suggests that children

can only achieve these benefits if they become like the

‘‘normal’’ child, suggesting that rather than achieving

equity the opposite is more likely. Similar outcomes occur

when structured mathematics education programmes are

promoted as being able to overturn the inevitability of poor

academic outcomes and subsequent poor life chances

without taking into consideration the skills and knowledge

that these children bring with them to early childhood

centres. As Pence and Hix-Small (2007) stated: ‘‘To ele-

vate ‘the child’ at the expense of ‘children’, to achieve

visibility for one construct at the expense of 99 (as Loris

Malaguzzi might say), is too great a price to pay’’ (p. 86).

References

Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Mathematics education in the

early years: Building bridges. Contemporary Issues in Early

Childhood, 10(2), 107–121.

Arnold, D. H., Fisher, P. H., Doctoroff, G. L., & Dobbs, J. (2002).

Accelerating math development in Head Start classrooms.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 762–770.

Aubrey, C., Bottle, G., & Godfrey, R. (2003). Early mathematics in

the home and out-of-home contexts. International Journal of

Early Years Education, 11(2), 91–103.

Back to the future?

123

Balfanz, R. (1999). Why do we teach young children so little

mathematics? Some historical considerations. In J. V. Copley

(Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 3–10). Reston, VA:

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long term effects of early childhood programs

on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3),

25–50.

Blau, D., & Currie, J. (2006). Preschool, daycare and after-school

care: Who’s minding the kids? In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch

(Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (pp.

1163–1278). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Currie, J., & Thomas, D. (1995). Does Head Start make a difference?

The American Economic Review, 85(3), 341–364.

Desert, M., Preaux, M., & Jund, R. (2009). So young and already victims

of stereotype threat: Socio-economic status and performance of 6 to

9 years old children on Raven’s progressive matrices. European

Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(2), 207–218.

Doverborg, E. (2006). Svenska forskola. In E. Doverborg & G.

Emanuelsson (Eds.), Sma barns matematik (Small children’s

mathematics). Goteborg: National Centre for Mathematics,

Goteborgs universitet.

DuCharme, C. C. (1992). Margaret McMillan and Maria Montessori:

Champions of the poor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting

of the National Association for the Education of Young

Children, New Orleans, November 12–15, 1992. http://eric.ed.

gov/?id=ED368463. Accessed 11 March 2014.

Ekstrand, B. (2000). Smabarnsskolan—vad hande och varfor? En

sekellang historia studerad med focus pa forandring av

pedagogisk verksamhet fran 1833 och framat [Infant

schools—what happened and why? A century-long history of

studies with focus on changes in educational activities from

1833 onwards]. Lund: Lunds universitet, Pedagogiska

institutionen.

Fisher, D. C. (1912). A Montessori mother. Ramway, NJ: Henry Holt.

Froebel, F. (1885). The Education of Man. [Translated by Josephine

Jarvis.] New York: A. Lovell. http://archive.org/details/educatio

nofman00froe. Accessed 11 March 2014.

Gilliland, A. R. (1951). Socio-economic status and race as factors in

infant intelligence test scores. Child Development, 22(4),

271–273.

Gordon, P. (1994). Robert Owen (1771–1858). Prospects: The

Quarterly Review of Education, 24(1/2), 279–296.

Haddad, L. (2002). An integrated approach to early childhood

education and care. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.ctc-health.org.

cn/file/20080527005.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2014.Holloway, S. D., Rambaud, M. F., Fuller, B., & Eggers-Pierola, C.

(1995). What is ‘‘appropriate practice’’ at home and in child

care? Low-income mothers’ views on preparing their children

for school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 451–473.

Howson, G. (1974). Mathematics: The fight for recognition. The

Mathematics Teacher, 3(1), 7–9.

Kemmis, S., & Mutton, R. (2012). Education for sustainability (EfS):

Practice and practice architectures. Environmental Education

Research, 18(2), 187–207.

Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., & Carrol, B. (2004). Child care in

poor communities: Early learning effects of type, quality, and

stability. Child Development, 75(1), 47–65.

Marginson, S. (2002). Social capital and global schooling. Educare

News, February 2002, 38–42.

May, H. (2001). Early childhood care and education in Aotearoa—

New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum.

Keynote address to Australian Education Union, Early Child-

hood Roundtable, 25 October 2001. http://www.aeufederal.org.

au/Ec/HMayspeech.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2014.

May, H. (2006). ‘Being Froebelian’: An antipodean analysis of the

history of advocacy and early childhood. History of Education,

35(2), 245–262.

McMillan, M. (1904). Education through the imagination. London:

Swan Sonnenschein.

McMillan, M. (1919). The nursery school. London: John Dent &

Sons.

Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori method. [Translated by Anne

E. George.] New York: Frederick A. Stokes.

Montessori, M. (1949). The absorbent mind. Adyar, India: The

Theosophical Publishing House.

Mooney, G. (2012). A short history of (mis)representing poverty.

Milton Keynes: Open University. http://www.open.edu/open

learn/society/short-history-misrepresenting-poverty. Accessed

11 March 2014.

Owen, R. (1812). A statement regarding the New Lanark Establish-

ment. Edinburgh: John Muir.

Papic, M. M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2011).

Assessing the development of preschoolers’ mathematical pat-

terning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3),

237–268.

Pence, A., & Hix-Small, H. (2007). Global children in the shadow of

the global child. International Critical Childhood Studies, 2(1),

75–91. http://journals.sfu.ca/iccps/index.php/childhoods/article/

viewFile/11/15. Accessed 11 March 2014.

Pence, A., & Nsamenang, B. (2008). A case for early childhood

development in sub-Saharan Africa. Working Paper No. 51. The

Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Piaget, J. (1962). The stages of the intellectual development of the

child. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 26, 120–128.

Popkewitz, T. (2009). Curriculum study, curriculum history, and

curriculum theory: The reason of reason. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 41(3), 301–319.

Prochner, L., & Kabiru, M. (2008). ECD in Africa: A historical

perspective. In M. Garcia, A. R. Pence, & J. L. Evans (Eds.),

Africa’s future, Africa’s challenge: Early childhood care and

development in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Prochner, L., May, H., & Kaur, B. (2009). ‘‘The blessings of

civilisation’’: Nineteenth-century missionary infant schools for

young native children in three colonial settings—India, Canada

and New Zealand 1820s–1840s. Paedagogica Historica,

45(1–2), 83–102.

Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2011). Reducing the gap in

numerical knowledge between low- and middle-income pre-

schoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32,

146–159.

Samuelsson, I. P., & Carlsson, M. A. (2008). The playing learning

child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian

Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (2009). Educating the young

mathematician: A historical perspective through the nineteenth

century. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 297–303.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2004). Building Blocks for early

childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

19(1), 181–189.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., & Melhuish,

E. (2008). Towards the transformation of practice in early

childhood education: The Effective Provision of Pre-school

Education (EPPE) project. Cambridge Journal of Education,

38(1), 23–36.

Smith, A. B., Grima, G., Gaffney, M., & Powell, K. (2000). Early

childhood education: Literature review report to the Ministry of

Education. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre,

University of Otago.

T. Meaney

123

Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakely, A. (2004). Enhancing young

children’s mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten

mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

19(1), 99–120.

Vinovskis, M. A. (1993). Early childhood education: Then and now.

Daedalus, 122(1), 151–176.

White, S. H., & Buka, S. L. (1987). Early education: Programs,

traditions and policies. Review of Educational Research in

Education, 14, 43–91.

Back to the future?

123