Nature, Nurture and the Space Between – Lessons from Froebel for the Early Years 51 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Global Education Review is a publication of The School of Education at Mercy College, New York. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Flemig, Sophie, & McNair, Lynn. (2022). Nature, Nurture and the Space Between: Lessons from Froebel for the Early Years. Global Education Review, 9 (2), 51-66. Nature, Nurture and the Space Between: Lessons from Froebel for the Early Years Sophie Flemig Moray House School of Education University of Edinburgh (UK) Lynn McNair Moray House School of Education University of Edinburgh (UK) Abstract In this article, we engage with a question that has occupied the professional, policy, and popular discourse on education and socialization: are a child’s development potential and outcomes contingent on innate abilities (“nature”) or environment (“nurture”) (Plomin, DeFries, & Fulker, 1988; Stiles, 2011; Tabery, 2014; Marley-Payne, 2021)? We explore what a Froebelian perspective can add to this question and how it can be translated into an early years context, focusing on its relevance for policy-making, supporting practitioners, and children’s rights. There is ample neuroscientific evidence (e.g., Miller and Jones, 2014) that it never was a clear-cut dichotomy; both forces interact, with the role of the adult as a key moderating variable between the two. For educators, the question thus becomes what these insights mean for our role in supporting child wellbeing and development. We consider the question through a Froebelian lens, starting with an analysis of Froebel’s own writings and the assemblages of his pedagogy to show the relevance of his approach in supporting practitioners in their role as mediators of the nature/nurture balance. The theoretical discussion is contextualized in contemporary Scottish Early Years policy and practice, highlighting untapped potential in an environment receptive to Froebelian ideals. We offer three propositions for how the engagement with Froebel’s vision can guide those working in the Early Years, and how we frame their interaction with children’s ecosystem. In conclusion, we argue for a more nuanced engagement with the nature/nurture debate, in particular in Early Years policy: rather than focusing on a false dichotomy of nature versus nurture, the article calls for a Froebelian reframing of our perspective on the Early Years. Keywords Froebel, Early Childhood Education, Environmental Influences, Child Development, Scotland, Educational Reform 1. Introduction We seek to engage with a question that has occupied the professional, policy, and popular discourse on education and socialization, namely whether a child’s development potential and outcomes are contingent on innate abilities (“nature”) or environment (“nurture”) (see, for instance, Plomin, DeFries, & Fulker, 1988; Stiles, 2011; Tabery, 2014; Marley-Payne, 2021). Our contribution will be to explore what a Froebelian perspective can add to this question and its application to the early years context, focusing on the continued relevance of a nuanced treatment of the nature/nurture interaction for policy-makers, practitioners, and children’s rights. 52 Global Education Review 8 (1) While it has been long disproven that there is a clear-cut and mutually exclusive duality between nature and nurture (for an overview, see Tabery 2014), new scientific advances emerging from the field of epigenetics (e.g., Rutter, 2002; Miller and Jones, 2014) have more recently been offering evidence for the complexity of the interaction between nature and nurture and the difficulty of mediating their effects for both practitioners and policy makers. For educators, the key question thus becomes what these insights mean for their role in supporting child wellbeing and development. We consider the question through a Froebelian lens, starting with an analysis of Froebel’s own writings and the work of educators whom he inspired to show the relevance of his pedagogical approach to support practitioners and policy- makers in mediating the nature/nurture balance. This is particularly remarkable since the most substantial scientific advances in the debate – based on pathbreaking neuroscientific and genetic insights – postdate Froebel’s death by almost two centuries. The following section frames the question, contextualizing its relevance and implications for practitioners, while section 3 presents a critical discussion of Froebel’s own writings as well as those of later Froebelian scholars. In turn, section 4 links this theoretical discussion with current Scottish Early Years policy and practice, highlighting untapped potential in an environment in principle receptive to Froebelian ideals. From an applied perspective, section 5 presents four propositions for how the engagement with Froebel’s vision can guide those working in the Early Years, and whom we count as belonging to this group. Finally, section 6 briefly summarizes the conclusions and calls for a new direction of travel for Early Years policy: rather than narrowly focusing on a false dichotomy of nature versus nurture, the paper calls for a Froebelian reframing of our perspective on the Early Years. 2. The Question: Relevance and Context 2.1 Nature v Nurture – What Matters and Why? Discussions about what shapes us as individuals, our personality and character, but, importantly, also our so-called “life chances,” have been a longstanding feature of human inquiry. Emblematic of many new directions, including Froebelian pedagogy, first references to the nature versus nurture debate date back to the 19th century; thus, Bynum (2002) credits Sir Francis Galton with its inception in 1869. However, human curiosity about the forces that shape who we are goes further back in history: earliest views in Ancient Greece up to the Middle Ages saw internal forces (the so-called humors) as the determinants of human behavior (Grant, 2002) while the philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke and Rosseau, considered environmental factors, in particular education, as shaping an otherwise “pure” human child, thus coining the proverbial “blank slate” view of early childhood development (“tabula rasa”; Duschinsky, 2012). As with many debates presented in dichotomous terms, the truth lies somewhere in between, and we will chart some of the most recent insights in the following sections. But is the nature/nurture question still relevant to our current thinking around childhood and education? We argue it is, for three reasons: 1) Making Policy Work: It is very clear by now that nature versus nurture is a false dichotomy; there are significant interaction effects. Yet, as Rutter (2002:1) points out, the dichotomy has come with “much misleading scientific evangelism and journalistic hype” leading to “the twin dangers of destructive Parental support for literacy development 53 cynicism and gullible expectation”. Policy- makers are increasingly proclaiming, based on scientific findings on child development, that the early years provide opportunities for early intervention, with the goal of setting a foundation for lifelong wellbeing (see for instance, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, 2021). However, the concept of early intervention and its translation into policy is not uncontroversial; Gillies, Edwards, and Horsley (2017) highlight the neoliberal ideology underlying this use of the nature versus nurture debate and how early intervention policies have perpetuated inequalities based on race, gender, and class. Similarly, Featherstone, Morris, and White (2014) argue for a shift from early intervention policies to asset-based, wholistic family support approaches. The use and misuse of recent insights around the nature versus nurture debate therefore calls for a deeply child- centered understanding of the factors that influence life outcomes and the levers that can improve them – one that, we argue, Froebelian Early Years practice can provide. With this article, we are therefore aiming to contribute to a more differentiated debate about what findings mean for policy and practice from a Froebelian perspective. 2) Supporting “Practitioners”: In a world where ever higher expectations are placed onto educators, an understanding of the contributions of, and interplay between, nature and nurture can not only help to guide practitioners on their journey; it also helps us to look at a child’s wellbeing and potential in a holistic way, acknowledging the full range of actors as well as environmental factors, in a child’s life that can – and should – offer support. In a way, the question allows us to start an interdisciplinary dialogue across the education, health, and social work professions, including key carers in a child’s family and wider care network – a quintessential principle of Froebelian practice (Bruce, 2012). 3) Children’s Rights: Probably the most important reason is the intrinsic right of every child to be treated with dignity and respect, and to receive the right support for the best possible start in life. In our analysis, we focus on Scotland, where parliamentarians voted unanimously to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on 16th March 2021. Understanding what makes for the best start to life by children, and how we can meet the needs of each and every child as they are, not how an education system demands they present, is therefore a right our children can, and should, expect from us. 2.2 Contemporary Developmental Science Development science is a vibrant field of scholarly inquiry, and this section can only provide a very high-level summary of milestones in the nature/nurture debate. For an excellent, comprehensive overview of the debate, Michael Rutter’s 2001 Presidential Address to the Society for Research in Child Development (Rutter, 2002) charts historical progress and recent debates on nature/nurture in development science. A marker in the nature/nurture debate from an education perspective is the difference between leading developmentalists Piaget and Vygotsky in the 1930s. Piaget’s theory understood cognitive development to occur in stages, through an interplay of innate capacity and environmental stimulus; teachers assume the role of facilitators that are required to “unlock” knowledge according the pre-set stages (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). Vygotsky sees a more active/initiating role for the teacher, who imparts formulated knowledge; knowledge is formed through social interaction and thus mostly through “nurture” (Shaffer & Kipp, 54 Global Education Review 8 (1) 2013). In contrast to earlier more fatalistic expectations about a child’s potential being set at birth, research from the 1950s to the 70s shifted the focus almost exclusively onto environmental factors (Horowitz, 1992), a trend Rutter (2002) refers to as “rampant environmentalism” (Rutter, 2002:9). This is mainly associated with attachment theory as first defined by John Bowlby (1951), who explored the effects of early adverse experiences and their effect for development throughout a child’s life. In terms of the more recent debates around genetics, developments have been driven mainly by quantitative genetics, based on twin studies which seek to understand the variance of certain traits by looking at genetic and non- genetic influences in a (relatively) controlled environment; findings here provide the first neuroscientific evidence pointing to a false dichotomy of the nature versus nurture debate, and rather demonstrate interaction effects between the two (Rutter & Silberg, 2002). Most excitingly, the emerging field of epigenetics is providing the concrete scientific mechanisms that link nature and nurture through the concept of the “exposome” (Wild, 2005), which connects environmental context with our molecular make-up. Miller and Jones (2014) further explored the field, stressing the role of trauma as a powerful environmental determinant, a view that led to the expansion and redefinition of approaches to attachment and the early years (Darling Rasmussen & Storebø, 2020; NSDC, 2020). The neuroscientific conclusion to the debate is thus one of two necessary yet not sufficient factors, with nurture as a potential key to unlocking nature, and care must be taken when transposing neuroscientific findings into an education context (Hall, Curtin and Rutherford, 2013). In the following section, we argue that Froebel seems to have presciently anticipated this conclusion in his practice, without the benefit of modern scientific insights. Froebel’s nuanced view on the interplay between a child as an autonomous learner and its environment, encompassed (and arguably exceeded) an ecological model over a century before it was proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979). Thus, we suggest Froebel was inadvertently calling for a reframing of the nature/nurture question before it was even fully formulated – giving Froebelian practice a decidedly modern feel and relevance. Critical Discussion of the Nature versus Nurture Debate in Froebel’s Writings and Assemblages 3.1 Tracing the Debate in Froebel’s Time and Life Born in 1782, Froebel’s professionally formative years were steeped in the upheavals and intellectual/social revolutions of early 19th century Germany. While a full analysis of the period is beyond the scope of this paper, it will focus on those aspects of social and scientific change that are likely to have influenced Froebel’s thinking on the nature versus nurture question. Nipperdey (1983) describes Froebel’s period as the world of the new Bürgertum (bourgeoisie), moving away from dogmatic church doctrines and towards a wider reach, if not exactly democratic access, to education, civil emancipation, and interest in the sciences. Importantly, Nipperdey also credits the era with the creation of the social sciences (Geisteswissenschaften, Nipperdey (1983), pp.498-532); applying insights from the natural sciences to explain cognitive and social phenomena was thus a trend of his time rather than an idiosyncratic feature of Froebel’s work. In addition to the new widening of education Parental support for literacy development 55 and knowledge, two further historic factors influenced Froebel’s writings: the shifting geopolitical power structures, from the Silesian Wars in the 1740s to the Napoleonic Wars of 1803-1815; and the German Revolutions of 1848/49 (Nipperdey, 1983; Sagarra, 2017). Froebel’s life and learning reflect his time in intensity and range. He suffered the trauma of losing his mother in 1783 as many of his contemporaries would have done (Nipperdey, 1983). In his youth, Froebel received training in the applied natural sciences while working in Bamberg’s forestry department in 1802, before tracing natural shapes into man- made structures during his architectural studies in 1804 (Kuntze, 1952). Froebel’s teaching career began in 1805, with training by Pestalozzi in Yverdon between 1808 and 1810, before his fateful move to Keilhau and the foundation of the Universal German Educational Institute in 1816/17 (Spranger, 1960). As the subsequent section 2.2 will discuss, a significant proportion of Froebel’s body of thought is represented in his magnum opus, The Education of Man (1826), as well as the more empirically-inspired Mothersongs (1844), based on his experience of running the first Kindergarten in 1840. Both works provide testimony to the rapidly changing social norms and views on education, as well as the newly formed social scientific tradition of the rising German bourgeoisie. As Bruce aptly suggests, Froebel truly was “a man of his time and society” (Bruce, 2020, p.92). 3.2 Froebel’s Own Writings Froebel did not address the nature versus nature question directly but it is a red thread that can be found in his work. In The Education of Man (1826), Froebel describes education as a creative process, which was revolutionary in the context of the Prussian education system (“When we are being creative we give body to thought: we render visible the invisible.”, p.31). In addition to this creative transformation of the inner to the outer, Froebel’s educational theory was revolutionary in so far as he understood the child as an individual presenting with their own idiosyncratic characteristics (“What the pupils know is not a shapeless mass, but has form and life. Each one is, as it were, familiar with himself.”, p. 156). Most tellingly, Froebel moved beyond the dichotomy of his contemporaries Rousseau and Locke by understanding the complex interplay between learned knowledge and our very being that shapes our behavior and potential (“We possess a great load of extraneous knowledge, which has been imposed on us and which we foolishly strive daily to increase . . . we have very little knowledge of our own that has originated in our own mind and grown with it.”, p. 156). In Froebel’s view, the Prussian education system did not acknowledge or make room for the development of the latter, striving for betterment appropriate with social standing – a mindset some of Froebel’s followers had not shaken off either as section 2.3 will show (Gunn, 1904). Placing Froebel in a debate that officially began after his death in 1852, and in which he therefore did not choose to be an active participant, is at best a speculative enterprise. Therefore, this paper will move beyond the literal representation of the nature versus nurture debate in Froebel’s writings to a critical review of the core elements of Froebel’s teaching and their relevance for educational theory (Liebschner, 1992). 3.2.1 Sensory Learning and the Natural Environment The Froebelian gifts and occupations (Whinnett, 2012) represent an interconnectedness of objects that can be 56 Global Education Review 8 (1) grasped by the child intuitively, suggesting an innate ability for reasoning and complex cognitive connections (Read, 1992). This is also reflected in Froebel’s approach to interacting with the natural environment; thus Herrington (1998) describes the Froebelian garden as a canvass for his wider teaching, a view confirmed by Brehony (2016), who describes Froebel’s view of the teacher as a “gardener” with children as growing leaves. Froebel’s educational theory is thus predicated on freedom and agency for the child (Bruce, 2019; McNair & Powell, 2020), with guidance as assistance on an individual learning path (Liebschner, 1992). It represents a “creative tension between our inner and outer selves” (Hargraves et al., 2019, p.144). Thus, it seems that a review of Froebel’s educational theory is transcending the Rousseauvian dichotomy of the nature versus nurture debate, forming a complex and revolutionary interconnected theory even before the debate had officially begun. It appears that Froebel was holding up a mirror to his contemporaries as much as to the modern reader, to suggest that the question of nature versus nurture yields interesting answers, but places them in the wrong framework. 4. Locating the Nature/Nurture Debate in Scotland’s Early Years Policy and Practice: Hearts, Minds, and Policy 4.1 Overview To locate these Froebelian insights within a policy context, we are looking at Scotland and its early years policies. Scotland 1 Humes and Bryce (2008) describe the Scottish education system as having a history that is distinct from the other three UK nations, with the Curriculum for Excellence having its origins in the McCrone report into Scottish education has a vibrant community of Froebelians, who were involved in shaping the current early years system, arguing in favor of an interconnected perspective on early years practice. This is embodied in the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE; Scottish Government, 2004), which was implemented from 2010 in an attempt to move from outputs and exam results to child-centered holistic learning for life (Humes, 2013), largely aligned with Froebelian principles1. Similarly, the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) framework, with its statutory basis in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, reiterates the importance of adopting an outcome focus and child-centered practice across agencies involved in the Early Years. Moreover, the Early Years Collaborative followed the tenets of the Christie Report (SG, 2011) to shift the focus from intervention to prevention, thereby acknowledging the importance of early childhood and echoing Froebel’s views of the potential that high quality and child-centered early learning can unlock (Scottish Government, 2018). Prominent Froebelians were involved in the creation of the Early Years aspects and guidance of the CfE, with a flourishing Froebelian network across Scotland (e.g., Spratt et al., 2019, Whinnett, 2020). Nonetheless, outcomes for children have remained disappointing across National Performance Indicators, in particular around child poverty (Scottish Government, 2020). Recent reforms to the Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) system also follow an English path of extending funded hours from 600 to 1,140 per child/annum, with access from two for and the National Debate on Education in 2002, with the resulting Curriculum Review Group in 2003 that included notable Froebelian scholars and practitioners (Humes, 2013). Parental support for literacy development 57 vulnerable children, and three universally (Audit Scotland, 2018). While firm data is as of yet unavailable, anecdotal evidence suggests this expansion of formal ELC may have come at the expense of family support services offered by the statutory and voluntary sectors. So while a move towards more universal access to high-quality ELC provisions seems to support Froebel’s approach, the spirit and intent of the policy may have the unintended consequence of counteracting the nurturing, child-centered care that Froebel saw emanate from the family unit as well as educational settings (McNair et al., 2021). Questions remain about competing policy motives and their influence on the ELC reform, such as access to the labor market for both parents, aimed particularly at maternal employment (Audit Scotland, 2018). Furthermore, Palmer’s (2020) edited volume on early years practice and experience in Scotland suggests that the Early Years remain the “Cinderella of the education system” (p.3); authors advocate for a kindergarten stage that takes formal education to age 6/7, and the elevation of the Early Years workforce in esteem (and pay), which bears parallels to Froebel’s original vision as well as the development of his teachings by his mostly female followers. Scotland thus seems to have the right pre- conditions for a Froebelian vision of nurturing every child’s nature holistically and across families and learning settings – the devil, as so often, remains in the detail of making this vision a reality. 4.2 Inequality and Its Legacy Addressing poverty-related inequalities in health, education, and wellbeing, are the key 2 Following SG definition: “Proportion of children living in households with equivalised incomes below 60% of the median (middle) UK income in the issues of Scottish social policy, and this goal figures prominently in practice guidance for ELC practitioners. Recalling recent findings from epigenetics that early environmental experiences can affect “nature”, i.e., our genetic make-up, practitioners need to understand systemic environmental factors that contextualize and set the parameters for what their early years practice can achieve and what the lived experience of the children they work with looks like. This is a key aspect of the social justice dimension of Froebelian principles (Konstantoni and Emejulu, 2017) and allows practitioners to identify potential bias or factors of social exclusion (Kustatscher, 2017), while also calibrating educational strategies to the needs of individual children. In “Shifting the Curve,” a report to the First Minister, Eisenstadt (2016) attempts to connect the dots between the policy narratives of early childhood, early learning and childcare (ELC), and poverty in the context of Scottish Early Years policy. Access to high quality ELC is suggested as a lever that can lift children and families out of intergenerational poverty through a) allowing parents to be economically active and b) addressing the environmental consequences of growing up in poverty. However, this compensatory education approach is not uncontroversial and, as discussed before, may counteract Froebelian principles of child- centeredness. Despite the intention of the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 and the Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland (SG, 2014) to eradicate child poverty by 2020 (McKendrick and Sinclair, 2012), the relative child poverty rate2 has risen from 19% in 2011/12 to 26% in current year”; see https://data.gov.scot/poverty/cpupdate.html https://data.gov.scot/poverty/cpupdate.html 58 Global Education Review 8 (1) 2019/20 against a revised 2023/24 interim target of 18%; Scottish Government projections for 2030/31 are currently at 38%. Further measures arising from recently devolved powers (Dickie, 2020: 98) as well as the newly introduced Scottish Child Payment of an additional £10 per week/child for families on Universal Credit (SG, no date) attempt to alleviate the effects of a decade of austerity. Practitioners need to recognise the lived reality of children growing up in poverty and adapt their practice, carefully reviewing their conception of “the child” and their environment in light of their own position and potential biases (Cronin et al., 2017). 5. Reflections for Early Years Practice As the previous sections have shown, science and Froebelian practice are pointing in the same direction. To aid the translation from theory to practice, we propose four propositions for practitioners and those working in the Early Years more widely below. Proposition 1: Understanding Systems The complex interplay between environmental and genetic factors requires a full understanding of a child’s environment, within and outside formal settings. Importantly, this includes families and care networks as much as Early Years practitioners (Tovey, 2017). While policies may have recently focused on formal settings in a drive to expand high-quality early learning and childcare (ELC), the Froebelian analysis emphasizes that it really does take a “village to raise a child,” as the saying goes, and insights on the role of adults in a child’s development and learning need to be honored irrespective of where the interaction happens. The proverbial “village” extends to the full community: family and friends, carers, statutory services, and the voluntary sector have a role to play. We need to both understand what a child’s individual system looks like and how we can engage those playing a part in it in order to meet a child where it is. Proposition 2: The Child as Individual Building on the latter point, science and Froebelian analysis point towards the need to make more room for meeting children as and where they are – not where systems for education, health or social care, expect them to be at any one point in time. The interplay of environmental factors and individual predisposition is unique to each and every one of us. We need to shift policy and practice so that the causal connection of approaches, education, and interventions originates from the child to where their potential will take them, not from a pre-formed goal for all pointing back towards all children. To do so, we need to be more aware of systems and their effects, but also strengthen the opportunity and capacity of professionals to connect with each other across different services, as well as to parents, carers, and the child’s “village.” Proposition 3: Teachers as Facilitators Finally, we can see the value of redefining the view of the practitioner in the early years (and beyond) to one of an empathetic facilitator that brings out the best, knowing that the potential for it already resides in each and every child. This requires a shift away from the strong focus on outputs and even outcomes to emphasizing the importance of process in early years practice, supporting professionals to reflect on and develop their personal, child- centered practice. This may be the most radical step as it goes against the grain of many main- stream education arrangements that focus on outputs, such as measures of attainment and Parental support for literacy development 59 academic performance. But international comparison shows that this is not only possible, but is also a liberating move towards child- centeredness, addressing inequalities, and increasing job satisfaction for teachers and related professions. Such new education approaches are developing with great results, e.g., the New School in London3, and Agora4 in the Netherlands. The same spirit is alive in Froebel’s early years practice and practitioners should be supported in reflecting on, and developing their practice. Proposition 4: The importance of holding the space If the answer to the nature/nurture question is “a bit of both,” it is all the more important to “hold the space” for children. This means to recognize environmental, systemic, and innate factors in order to provide a safe and supported environment for the child to develop according to its own agency; this includes the development of a child’s understanding of its own connectedness to others and nature, and its sense of responsibility towards both. This may look different for children living in different circumstances, and highlights the social justice dimension of Froebel’s teachings. Practitioners thus need to be active agents of social justice by engaging with intersectionality (Konstantoni and Emejulu, 2017) and critically evaluating their own practice in this light. 3 https://www.thenewschool.org.uk/ 5. Conclusion – Life with Froebel: Reflections as Practitioners, Parents, and Human Beings Amazingly, approaching the question of nature versus nurture from a 19th century Froebelian perspective has led to the same conclusion as our 21st century emerging work on epigenetics: the dichotomy is false and more complex than the question could express. This attests to Froebel’s prescience as a man well ahead of his time – and possibly even current mainstream polices and practices. What does this mean for us? Distilling the various conclusions from all sections, we are left with three imperatives: First, the duty to honor a child’s range of potential and to help “hold the space” between nature and nurture for the interplay that becomes the child’s development. Secondly, we need to review our societal systems to address structural factors, such as poverty, that can affect a child’s development. Finally, we need a concerted effort to become agents of social justice, following Froebel’s example and do better for future generations. These imperatives are paramount – but with almost two-hundred years’ lead-time, what excuse do we have not to act? References Audit Scotland (2018) Early Learning and Childcare: Report, retrieved online on 8th January 2021 at https://www.audit- scotland.gov.uk/report/early-learning- 4https://hundred.org/en/innovations/agora#dc8759 17 https://www.audit-/ 60 Global Education Review 8 (1) and- childcare?utm_content=buffer87af2&ut m_medium=social&utm_source=twitte r.com&utm_campaign=buffer Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Brehony, K. (2001) The Origins of Nursery Education, Volumes I-VI. London: Routledge. --- (2016) Working at Play or Playing at Work? A Froebelian Paradox Re-examined. In May et al. Kindergarten Narratives on Froebelian Education. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bruce, T. (ed.) (2019) Early Childhood Practice: Froebel Today. London: Sage. --- (2020). Educating young children: A lifetime journey into a Froebelian approach. London: Routledge. Bryce, T.G.K, & Humes, W.M. (2008) Scottish Education – Beyond Devolution (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2008. Bynum, W.F. (2002) The Childless Father of Eugenics, Science, 296 (5567), pp. 472ff. Cole, E. (1990) An Experience in Froebel's Garden. Childhood Education 67(1), pp. 18-21. Cronin, M., Argent, K. and C. Collett (2017) Poverty and Inclusion in Early Years Education. Oxford: Routledge. Darling Rasmussen, P., & Storebø, O. J. (2020). Attachment and Epigenetics: A Scoping Review of Recent Research and Current Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/003329412090 1846 Dickie, J. (2020) Learning from Scotland? In Tucker, J. (ed) 2020 Vision: Ending Child Poverty for Good. London: Child Poverty Action Group. Dunlop, A.-W. (2015) Aspirations and actions: early childhood from policy to practice in Scotland. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(3), pp. 258- 273, DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2015.1074559 Dunlop, A.-W. (2016) A view from Scotland: early years policy in the four nations: common challenges, diverse solutions. Early Education Journal, 78 (Spring), pp. 10-12 & 15. Parental support for literacy development 61 Duschinsky, R. (2012). Tabula Rasa and Human Nature. Philosophy, 87(4), pp. 509-529. DOI: 10.1017/S0031819112000393 Eisenstadt, N. (2016) Shifting the Curve: A Report to the First Minister, Independent Advisor on Poverty and Inequality, Scottish Government. Last accessed online on 2nd May 2021 at https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/ documents/govscot/publications/indep endent-report/2016/01/independent- advisor-poverty-inequality-shifting- curve-report-first- minister/documents/00492430- pdf/00492430- pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00492430.p df Featherstone, B., Morris, K., and S. White (2014) A Marriage Made in Hell: Early Intervention Meets Child Protection. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(7), pp. 1735–1749, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct052. Froebel, F. (1826) The Education of Man. London: Appleton. Froebel, F. (1844) Mothersongs, reprinted in Froebel, F. (1982) Kommt, lasst uns unsern kindern leben: Friedrich Fröbels Mutter- und Koselieder: mit zwei Beiträgen über Friedrich Fröbel und einem Quellenanhang. Thüringen: Mitteldeutsche Verlagsgesellschaft. Gehrett, C. (1997) Children as Revolutionaries: Transforming the Paradigms. In H. Palsson - B. Siguroardottir - B. Nelson (eds), Philosophy for Children on Top of the World: Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Philosophy. Gillies, V., Edwards, R., and N. Horsley (2017) Challenging the Politics of Early Intervention: Who’s ‘saving’ children and why. Bristol: Policy Press. Grant, M. (2002) Steiner and the Humours: The Survival of Ancient Greek Science. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(1), pp. 56-70. DOI: 10.1111/1467- 8527.00103 Gunn, J. (1904). The Infant School: Its Principles and Methods. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons. Gura, P. (ed) (1992) Exploring Learning: Young 62 Global Education Review 8 (1) Children and Blockplay. London: Chapman Publishing. Hall, K., Curtin, A., and V. Rutherford (2013) Networks of Mind: Learning, Culture, Neuroscience. London: Routledge. Hargreaves, D. J., Robson, S., & Greenfield, S. (2019) Ownership and autonomy in early learning. In Bruce, T. et al. (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Froebel and early childhood practice: re-articulating research and policy. London: Routledge. Herrington, S. (1998) The garden in Fröbel's kindergarten: beyond the Metaphor. Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes, 18(4), pp. 326- 338, DOI: 10.1080/14601176.1998.10435556 Horowitz, F. D. (1992). John B. Watson's legacy: Learning and environment. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 360– 367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.28.3.360 Humes, W. (2013) The origins and development of the Curriculum for Excellence: Discourse, Politics, and Control. In Priestly, M., & Biesta, G. Reinventing the curriculum, new trends in curriculum policy and practice. London: Bloomsbury. Kincheloe, J.L., McLaren, P., & Steinberg, S.R. (2005). Critical Pedagogy and Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.; pp. 163- 178). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Kipp, K. and D. Shaffer (2013), Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence, International Edition, (9th ed.). London: Wadsworth. Konstantoni, K. and A. Emejulu (2017) When intersectionality met childhood studies: the dilemmas of a travelling concept, Children's Geographies, 15:1, 6-22, DOI:10.1080/14733285.2016.1249824 Kuntze, M.-A. (1952) Friedrich Fröbel: Sein Weg und Sein Werk. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Kustatscher, M. (2017) Young children's social class identities in everyday life at primary school: The importance of Parental support for literacy development 63 naming and challenging complex inequalities, Childhood, 24 (3): 381-395. Leat, D. (2006). Grantmaking Foundations and Performance Measurement: Playing Pool? Public Policy and Administration, 21(3), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670602 100303 Liebschner, J. (1992) A Child’s Work: Freedom and Guidance in Froebel’s Educational Theory and Practice. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press. Marley-Payne, J (2021) Rethinking Nature and Nurture in Education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(1): 143-166. McNair, L,J., and S. Powell (2020) Friedrich Froebel: a path least trodden, Early Child Development and Care, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2020.1803299 ---, Blaisdell, C., Davis, J.D. and L.J. Addison (2021) Acts of pedagogical resistance: Marking out an ethical boundary against human technologies, Policy Futures in Education, 0(0):1-15. DOI: 10.1177/1478210320976978. Miller, G.W., &. Jones, D.P. (2014) The Nature of Nurture: Refining the Definition of the Exposome, Toxicological Sciences, 137(1), pp.1–2, https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kft251 National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2020) Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long- Term Development, Harvard Center for the Developing Child Working Paper No. 10, accessed online on 1st November 2020. Nipperdey, T. (1983) Deutsche Geschichte 1800- 1866: Bürgerwelt und Starker Staat, Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck. Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C., & Fulker, D.W. (1988) Nature and Nurture during Infancy ad Early Childhood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quinn, R., Tompkins-Stange, M., & Meyerson, D. (2014). Beyond Grantmaking: Philanthropic Foundations as Agents of Change and Institutional Entrepreneurs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), 950–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976401348 8836 64 Global Education Review 8 (1) Read, J. (2006) Free Play with Froebel: Use and Abuse of Progressive Pedagogy in London’s Infant Schools, 1870-c.1904, Pedagogica Historica, 42(03), pp. 2099-323. DOI: 10.1080/00309230600622717 Read, J. (2013) Bringing Froebel into London’s infant schools: the reforming practice of two head teachers, Elizabeth Shaw and Frances Roe, from the 1890s to the 1930s, History of Education, 42:6, pp. 745-764, DOI: 10.1080/0046760X.2013.820847 Rogers, S. (2016) From Theories of Play to Playing with Theories. In David, T. et al. (eds), The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care, London: Routledge. Rutter, M. (2002), Nature, Nurture, and Development: From Evangelism through Science toward Policy and Practice, Child Development, 73 (1): 1- 21. Rutter, M. & Silberg, J. (2002) Gene- Environment Interplay in Relation to Emotional and Behavioral Disturbance. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 463- 90. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.1352 23. Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1969) The Psychology of the Child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sagarra, E. (2017) A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914. London: Routledge. Scottish Government (2004). A Curriculum for Excellence by the Curriculum Review Group. Retrieved online on 8th January 2021 at https://www.webarchive.org.uk/waybac k/archive/20170701074158/www.gov.sc ot/Publications/2004/11/20178 --- (2011) Christie Commission on the future delivery of public services. Retrieved online on 15th July 2021 at https://www.gov.scot/publications/com mission-future-delivery-public-services/ --- (2014) Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland: Our Approach 2014-17. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Last accessed online on 3rd May 2021 at Parental support for literacy development 65 https://www.gov.scot/publications/chil d-poverty-strategy-scotland-approach- 2014-2017/ --- & Institute for Healthcare Improvement (2018). The Scottish Improvement Journey: A Nationwide Approach, retrieved online on 8th January 2021 at https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/ documents/govscot/publications/progre ss-report/2018/04/scottish- improvement-journey-nationwide- approach-improvement-compiled-2016- 17/documents/00534268- pdf/00534268- pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00534268.p df ---. Poverty and income inequality statistics. Retrieved online on 8th January 2021 at https://www.gov.scot/collections/pover ty-and-income-inequality-statistics/ --- (no date) The Scottish Child Payment, last accessed online on 3rd May 2021 at https://www.mygov.scot/scottish-child- payment Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (2021) The Best Start for Life: A Vision for the 1,001 Critical Days. The Early Years Healthy Development Review Report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Last accessed online on 15th September 2021 at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk /government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/973085/Early_Ye ars_Report.pdf Shirreff, E.A. (1887) Infant Schools and the Kindergarten, Journal of Education, 9 (April): 187-188; reprinted in Brehony, K. (2001) The Origins of Nursery Education, Volumes VI, London: Routledge, pp. 391-392. Spranger, E. (1960) Aus Friedrich Fröbels Gedankenwelt, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Spratt, J., McNair, L., Whinnett, J., Waters, J., and Clement, J., (2019) Chapter 40: Froebelian chimings with the legally framed early childhood curriculum document in Great Britain. In T. Bruce, P. Elfer, S., Powell., L. Werth (eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Froebel and Childhood Practice, 66 Global Education Review 8 (1) Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 285-291. Stiles, J. (2011) Brain Development and the nature versus nurture debate, Progress in Brain Research, 189: 3-22. Tabery, J. (2014) Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tovey, H. (2017) Bringing the Froebel Approach to your Early Years Practice, (2nd ed.), New York: Routledge. Wasmuth, H. (2020) Fröbel’s Worldview and His Pedagogy of Kindergarten and Play. In Wasmuth, H. Fröbel’s Pedagogy of Kindergarten and Play: Modifications in Germany and the United States. New York: Routledge. Whinnett, J. (2012) Gifts and Occupations: Froebel’s Gifts (wooden block play) and Occupations (construction and workshop experiences) today. In Bruce, T. (ed.) Early Childhood Practice: Froebel Today (pp.121-136). London: Sage. Whinnett, J. (2020) The Flourishing of the Edinburgh Froebel Network “Players and Storytellers” Project. In Bruce,T., McNair, L.J., & Whinnett, J. (Eds.), Putting Storytelling at the Heart of Early Childhood Practice: A Reflective Guide for Early Years Practitioners. London: Routledge. Wild, C. P. (2005). Complementing the genome with an “exposome”: the outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 14, pp.1847–1850.