September 15, 2021 • 40 mins
If you want to see what a culture hopes for, or is afraid of, look at their lesson plans. What we decide to teach--and what we decide to avoid teaching--tells us a lot about what a society believes in. In this episode, we ask: how do our ideas about children and childhood impact curriculum? How do changes in curriculum reflect changes in what adults believe children are, what children want, and what children need to learn?
In response to these questions, we explore the bizarre lessons embedded in nineteenth-century temperance curriculum, which was dedicated to teaching children what not to want (hint: alcohol!). We also examine the philosophy of German educator Friedrich Fröbel, who was dedicated to placing children’s wants at the center of the school day. Finally, we consider the ongoing struggle over how much say young people have in the content of the lessons that they are asked to absorb. For related materials and a reading list, please visit thechildrenstablepodcast.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Anna Mae Duane (00:03):
Welcome to the Children's Table Podcast
dedicated to the idea that youngpeople have always been
participants in history, andliterature and art and in
politics.
Victoria Ford Smith (00:13):
As three professors have spent our
careers studying the history andculture of childhood, we want to
share the questions we haveabout how adults have imagined
what childhood means, and howthose ideas have shaped the
lives of children, for betterand for worse.
Kate Capshaw (00:28):
Along the way, we will share the stories of some
brilliant, brave andgroundbreaking young people
we've gotten to know.
Victoria Ford Smith (00:36):
I'm Victoria, I'm Anna Mae.
Kate Capshaw (00:39):
I'm Kate. And let's head to the children's
table. Today we are talkingabout curriculum. If you want to
see what a culture hopes for, oris afraid of take a look at
their lesson plans. What wedecide to teach, and what we
(00:59):
decide to avoid teaching tellsus a lot about what we believe.
In this episode, we'll bethinking about curriculum. And
we'd like to start with bigoverarching questions. And so
our big questions for todayfocused on curricular change.
Where does curricular changecome from? How do schools
change? How do our ideas aboutchildren and childhood impact
(01:21):
curriculum? And when acurriculum does change, how
does it reflect our shifts inperception about children and
their needs, what they want whatthey need to learn? So these are
our big questions for ourdiscussion today. And we're
starting in the 19th century aswe tend to do with Anna Mae.
Anna Mae Duane (01:41):
Yes, starting with one aspect of curriculum
that I think a lot of us arefamiliar with, either if we're
remembering our own school days,or if we are the parents of
children who are attendingschools, or if you are a child
listening to us, and isattending school right now. And
it's the aspect of teachingchildren not to do something, to
(02:06):
not want what they mightotherwise want to do, which is
to train their behavior in waysthat adults feel would be
acceptable or desirable. Wethink about curriculum as the
knowledge that gets conveyed.
But it's also about withholdingknowledge or teaching children
not to want to know certainthings.
(02:27):
And I wanted to start with oneexample in curricular
development, that was really allabout convincing kids not to do
something, not to want what theymight otherwise want when they
grew up, and that would be astiff drink, right? That was
there was a large, decades longmovement dedicated to teaching
(02:48):
children exactly to avoidwanting such a thing. The
women's Christian Temperanceunion was this organization or
is one of the majororganizations dedicated to get
alcohol outlawed in the UnitedStates, which of course, they
eventually do with theratification of the 18th.
amendment in 1917. But thesewomen had been playing this long
(03:11):
game to get to 1917. They hadbeen working on this for
literally decades. temperance,which is the argument that
alcohol should be outlawed, andit is inherently evil, had been
a key part of the Americanpolitical landscape throughout
the 19th century, easily from1830 onward. By the 1870s and
(03:32):
1880s. The women's ChristianTemperance Union knew they were
fighting an uphill battle, sothey realized they needed to
invest in the future.
They needed to recruit children.
They turned to the schools andcreated a curriculum determined
to change kids into lifelongteetotallers. The woman behind
this, she was really quite aforce of nature was Mary
(03:52):
Hanchett Hunt. And she wasdetermined to get this
curriculum adopted in schoolsacross the country. And
remember, this is a time inwhich women did not yet get the
vote; temperance passes beforesuffrage passes in the United
States, so we can think aboutwhy that might be. Even though
she couldn't vote, she and othermembers--largely women--worked
(04:15):
with politicians to get laws onthe books requiring temperance
curriculum to be included inschools. By 1892, all but 10
states had adopted such laws.
There were textbooks teachingchildren to avoid alcohol; there
were lesson plans. There waseverything you could imagine.
And it was called the scientifictemperance instruction
(04:37):
curriculum. It is completely nota scientific curriculum.
They taught things like-- thisis just a few of the gems that
were passed down to students fordecades: The majority of beer
drinkers die of heart failure.
Alcohol will burn the skin offyour throat, one drop of the
smallest drink of alcoholprevents your blood from
(05:02):
absorbing oxygen. So one sip ofwine, forget it, especially if
you drink hard spirits, right?
Vodka, bourbon, something likethat. You become psychotic, and
your face and hands will turn amottled color, which is, you
know, especially in the 19thcentury, there's a lot of
anxiety about color in general.
But there's this idea that itwill literally change your
(05:23):
color, but in this case, fromarguably white to blue. Another
thing that will happen,according to this curriculum, is
alcohol causes the heart to beattoo fast. And this sets you on a
vicious cycle. So my heart isbeating too fast, because I've
had some wine. And somehow, Ican't stop drinking, now I have
(05:44):
to keep pounding drinks,according to this model, or my
heart will stop. So you haveonce you start drinking, you're
you know, that was a tenet ofsort of underlying a lot of
these lessons is that one drop,and you were a goner. So once
you take one glass of wine, orone sip of vodka, and you're on
(06:04):
this road to hell, right, you'renow . . your heart is addicted
to alcohol. And if you try tobecome sober, you will probably
die anyway. So just avoid at all
costs. Another gem (06:16):
alcohol turns the blood to water. And
one of my favorite examples isthat they would have in class
demonstrations againstscientific demonstrations that
someone would bring in a calf'sbrain,
Kate Capshaw (06:31):
as you do, you bring one to school,
Victoria Ford Smith (06:32):
school supply list, one calf's brain.
(laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (06:37):
I know in the teachers bag, and you would drop
it into grain alcohol. And ofcourse, it would look gross, it
would bubble it would decay. I'mactually kind of Tempted to Try
this because I don't know whathappened, you could potentially
Victoria Ford Smith (06:52):
do that on our Twitter feed just a live
live footage of caps bringalcohol
Kate Capshaw (06:59):
or not, it's fine.
(laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (07:03):
See if it converts anyone to the ways of
temperance? They will also do itsometimes with an egg. Which you
"this is your brain on drugs" soclearly, right? But this idea
of, you know, you have all thesevisual elements and these horror
stories and invariably wouldturn to a life of crime. there
was all this material justdesigned to really terrify
(07:26):
children. And you know, onething I was thinking about is
what it must have been like forkids to go home, and like watch
their father or mother drink aglass of wine when they've been
told all day in school thatthat's it. They're now on, you
know, they're on a road to aquick death and criminal
behavior and a number ofhorrors.
Kate Capshaw (07:48):
I wonder how many families were temperance
families, and it just wasn'tdone. And so you know, they're
hearing it in school, and thenit wasn't happening at home.
Anna Mae Duane (07:56):
Right.
Kate Capshaw (07:57):
But also, I wonder how it might have been inflicted
on immigrant communities intimes of anxiety about
immigration? Yeah, I don't, Idon't know anything about that
Anna Mae, so . . .
Anna Mae Duane (08:09):
I mean, I think it was a little of both.
Generally 19th century reformmovements are aimed at lower
income communities, andimmigrant communities. So I'm
sure there were temperancefamilies. But I'm sure that
there were children in theseclassrooms, again, like it was
taught in 40 states. I mean, youknow, there was a large
(08:31):
contingent that wereteetotallers. But you often had
people in the same family thatdidn't agree. So one of the
things that happened,eventually, maybe because kids
were so terrified by theselessons, and a vision of boiling
calf brains, a committee of 50it was called, and it was
comprised of scholars andscientists, who sort of got
(08:53):
together and analyzed theseteachings who sat down and said,
okay, it's called the scientifictemperance curriculum. How
scientific is it? And guesswhat? They determined that was
not scientific at all, was justnot true. It was largely
debunked. There was debates innewspapers about this. But there
are accounts of this curriculumbeing taught up until 1950. And
(09:16):
arguably, beyond, I didn't haveto look very long online to find
a lesson taught--I believe itwas in Georgia--in 1952--that
would not have been out of placein a 19th century classroom:
that you're taught these arethings that you know, one drop
and you're a goner.
Kate Capshaw (09:32):
Yeah, it's it's frightening to me right now.
Laughter
Anna Mae Duane (09:38):
It is making me want to drink!
Kate Capshaw (09:39):
I'm a goner. So the big question that we opened
with, of course, was thinkingthrough how curriculum reflects
the cultural imagination aroundchildhood. And so it seems that
what you're suggesting is thatthis culture is really
interested in instilling terrorin children or making children
(10:00):
afraid of their own desiresafraid of afraid of themselves,
right? And they can't reallytrust themselves around certain
elements like I'm thinking of .
. . I'm thinking I won't say ofcourse, but I'm thinking about,
you know, abstinence programswhere it's like all or nothing,
you know, as in the horrormovies where if you're a
teenager and have sex, you'redead. And so the abtinence
programs are very similar tothat kind of ethos too right?
Victoria Ford Smith (10:26):
Also, often using props like the calf . . .
I mean, we're joking about thecalf brain and the egg and like,
you compare that to the brain ondrugs campaign, but even
abstinence movements right oftenand I've heard of curriculum
where you're used-up chewinggum, if you've had sex, right?
and
Anna Mae Duane (10:43):
yeah,
Victoria Ford Smith (10:43):
there is something about like, desires
and food happening. I don'tknow. It's It's strange. The,
yeah, the metaphors that theyuse.
Anna Mae Duane (10:52):
Yeah. And I mean, with drugs, right? There
was always this argument thatone, you know, once you took one
whiff of pot, right, again, itwas a gateway drug that there's
no in between there's nomoderation possible.
Kate Capshaw (11:06):
I remember being in Catholic school. And there
were, a nun sent up two glassesof milk.
Victoria Ford Smith (11:12):
It is already bad. (laughter)
Kate Capshaw (11:15):
And the one glass of milk . I'm having a
flashback . . (laughter). Wasthe person who hasn't sinned,
and then the other glass ofmilk, she just dropped Hershey
syrup into it. And it was an allor nothing, right? You're either
holy or you're damned.
Victoria Ford Smith (11:32):
Well, a delicious chocolate milk is so
much better and or
Anna Mae Duane (11:37):
delicious.
Yes, yes!
Kate Capshaw (11:40):
But this "all or nothing" thing is really very
disturbing.
Victoria Ford Smith (11:43):
Well, and it also speaks to what we think
about children too, right? Likethe idea.
Anna Mae Duane (11:47):
ItYeah,
Victoria Ford Smith (11:47):
It seems to be connected to the idea that we
think children can't controlthemselves like that, that it is
all or nothing, because kidsdon't understand moderation,
right? I'm thinking about thoseYouTube videos of the
marshmallow experiment with kidswhere they can't handle not
eating the marshmallow, while anadult leaves the room that we
constantly have to policechildren's desires and
(12:10):
consumption.
Kate Capshaw (12:11):
Yeah
Anna Mae Duane (12:12):
Right that it's dangerous. And even the
marshmallow experiments, youknow, that's been so heavily
critiqued, because it depends onwhether the children tend to
trust adults, how manymarshmallows they've had in
their life, you know, there's somany other factors that surround
this one choice this childmakes. Of course, we put all
(12:33):
this meaning on. But I mean, Ithink this may be a particularly
American fetish. You know, justthere's so much about purity. I
mean, a drop of chocolate milk,what's his amazing chocolate
syrup and making chocolate milkand, you know, the liquor
changing your color? I mean, Ithink it ties into all sorts of
other anxieties, right, that weneed these very clean lines
(12:56):
between sinners and non sinnersdrinkers and non drinkers that
we want to teach children not toquestion. Right? Don't go over
the line. Don't Don't take onestep, right?
Kate Capshaw (13:08):
That seems to be very American in its approach.
Victoria Ford Smith (13:11):
Yeah, I was actually thinking like, I don't
know much. And by saying, Idon't know much, I don't really
know anything about alcoholculture in 19th century England
and children. But I know thatGeorge Cruickshank, who is
really famous for illustratingCharles Dickens, wrote
bowdlerized versions of fairytales that took all the alcohol
out of them and made themtemperance tales. And so for
(13:34):
example, like there was noalcohol at the wedding feast,
right, Cinderella and the princeor whatever. And Charles Dickens
wrote a very angry essay called"Frauds on the Fairies" about
how you're injecting thisdiscourse of temperance into
children's culture. And sothey're at least with some
resistance to that idea thatthis isn't something we need to
trouble them about. I'm not surehow widespread that feeling was.
(13:56):
But Charles Dickens would nothave dropped a calf brain in to
grain alcohol, I think.
Kate Capshaw (14:00):
Yeah, I think I need to learn more about the
British approach to be honest,more in line with with life
without remembering this WilliamHogarth image of Beer street and
Gin lane. Do Are you guysfamiliar with that?
Anna Mae Duane (14:13):
Oh, yes.
Unknown (14:14):
Yeah, so beer street is healthy gin lane is completely
depraved. But it's justinteresting that then it's not,
you know,
Victoria Ford Smith (14:21):
My college experience upholds that reading
a beer street and gin lane.
Yeah.
Anna Mae Duane (14:26):
Nice when you're in trouble. I mean, in 19th
century American culture,temperance and being anti
slavery, were just . . . if youdid one, you were part of the
other community. You were bothtemperance and anti slavery. But
there was some fallout becauseGerman immigrants who were
largely anti slavery and wereyou know felt quite passionate
(14:47):
about it, often were sort ofexcluded from American anti
slavery circles because theydrink beer. So right they there
was no wiggle room, you you'regetting your all your nothing.
So I mean, we kind of laughabout how silly these lessons
are, you know, and we wonder ifkids rolled their eyes at them,
you know, either they wereterrified, or maybe the way kids
(15:09):
kind of roll their eyes. Maybeit's some abstinence films, how
I mean, I think it's a mix ofboth. But I mean, this
curriculum went in the 1870s and1880s 1890s. And the 18th
amendment is passed by thisgeneration and their kids. So we
can't write it off. Right. Ithink what gets taught in
(15:29):
schools do shape sort of the thepaths children take and sort of
the shape of the culture. Sothese women, they played the
long game, and at least in theirterms, it paid off for them.
Now, I think we're going to takea break. And then when we
return, we're going totransition to a arguably kinder
and more kid friendly version ofhow kids learn or what they want
(15:53):
to learn. (Music break)
Victoria Ford Smith (15:58):
So I want to talk about kindergarten,
actually, where there typicallyis not a lot of booze, although,
I don't know, there could be,
Kate Capshaw (16:08):
There could be.
Victoria Ford Smith (16:09):
So really kindergarten, which is a
movement that's largely creditedto a German educator named
Friedrich Froebel. So youprobably have heard Froebel or
Froebelian as an adjective. Andit sort of inverts the idea of
curriculum that Anna Mae wasjust describing, as important to
temperance education. So thephilosophy of kindergarten, in
(16:30):
some ways thinks about kids, asteachers, kids telling adults
what to do. So adults shouldattend to what kids want and
should observe children andfollow their natural ways. And
only by treating kids that way,will they be really susceptible
to learning. And so this reallygained speed in the 19th
(16:51):
century. And it sounds really,it is really great. I'm not a
kindergarten hater. But it alsois really informed by adult
ideas of childhood. So I'll getto that get to that too. But I
wanted to actually start withCharles Dickens, who I promise,
I'm not obsessed with CharlesDickens. But he's returning
again as he, as he does. Hewrote a cover story for his his
(17:17):
newspaper Household Words onJuly 22 1855. And it was titled
"Infant Gardens." And this wasat a moment when kindergartens
were quite new. And so noteveryone would automatically
know this educational model. Andhe argues that Friedrich Froebel
had a childhood that led to thisparticular approach as an
(17:39):
educational innovator. So thisis Charlie's words. He wrote
that "the unsatisfied cravingsof Friedrich's childhood had
borne fruit within him. Heremembered the quick feelings
and perceptions, the incessantnimbleness of mind proper to his
first years, and how he had beenhemmed in and cramped, for want
(17:59):
of right encouragement andsympathy. There would be fewer
sullen, quarrelsome, dull-wittedmen or women, if there were
fewer children starved, or fedimproperly in heart, and brain."
Right? So there's this big ideathat like, if you're not allowed
to be a kid, as a kid, thenyou'll be a bad adult.
Anna Mae Duane (18:21):
Right? And I just I'm so struck with that,
quote, as it's, it's so inverseto what we were just describing,
right? That it's the child'sdesire, that's important to
cultivate, right? That, thatshutting down children's desire
is what makes them miserablepeople. We've just spent fifteen
minutes thinking about how fordecades, that was the main
(18:44):
thrust of an entire nationalcurriculum: to shut down
children's desires, or theirfuture desires.
Unknown (18:51):
Right. And it's very much about, it's interesting to
read some of Froebel's, writingsand people who are writing about
Froebel, who are students ofhim. It's a lot about like
watching children, and observingthem and seeing what they're
naturally drawn to. I mean,right now, it sounds creepy, but
it's also sort of aligning withthe beginning of educational
psychology and fields like that.
So this idea that we can observekids and learn what they want
(19:14):
and and give what they want tothem. So you're right. It's
very, it's very kind ofdifferent from what we were
first talking about.
Kate Capshaw (19:22):
Yeah. And that quote, I think, at the end of
it, it talks about sort offeeding the child's heart and
brain and things like that. So achild needs to be supported in
being a child by given thingsthat are childish, or something.
. ..
Victoria Ford Smith (19:35):
Yeah, this is kind of what I was thinking
about in terms of its payingattention to children and giving
them power, but also reallyinformed by ideas of childhood
because what children's heartsand brains need isn't always
super explicit. And a lot ofthese it's considered like
obviously, children naturallyneed some things or naturally
(19:57):
asked for them. So some of thethings that children naturally
need (20:00):
movement in play. Froebel was really into the idea of
play? I'm going to read a quotefrom Froebel, who has very
complicated sentences, kind oflike Henry James in writing
might be his translator. But hesays "we shall no longer
repressed their energies, tie uptheir body, shut their mouths
and declare that they worry usby the incessant putting of the
(20:20):
questions, which the father ofus has placed in their mouth."
So he wanted both mental andphysical freedom. And then
Dickens comments, "as a childgrows the most unaccustomed
positions into which it can besafely twisted, are those from
which oversee the greatestpleasure." So I get this idea of
like child pretzels, like, justbend them around. (laughter)
(20:42):
Charles Dickens was weird, butjust the idea that, you know,
they should be allowed to moveabout, they should be allowed to
play, you know, have freedom intheir bodies was really, really
important.
Kate Capshaw (20:52):
And it's hard for us in the 21st century to think
about how kind of radical thatwas the concept of embracing the
child's physicality. And, youknow, in part because of all the
kind of Puritan underpinnings ofthe culture, but yeah, I mean,
I'm just really struck by the,by the way, that it what you're
offering focuses on the pleasurein the child's body and sort of
(21:15):
mutability of a child's bodytoo.
Victoria Ford Smith (21:17):
Yeah, it to me, it's like the opposite of
swaddling, right, I think aboutswaddling as a practice of
really binding baby's bodies forsafety, and they thought it was
healthy to keep children stillin here. They're saying no, no,
let them be bent intounaccustomed poses. (laughter)
So movement and play. Anotherthing that was really central to
(21:39):
the kindergarten movement wasthe idea of toys as educational
tools. So Froebel had what wascalled a series of gifts that
children receive at differentparts of their education. And
they included things like filledballs of bright colors, wooden
blocks that were chopped up intodifferent fractions of
themselves. He was really intopea work, like p e a work, you
(22:01):
soften peas, and then put sticksinto them like erector sets.
Anna Mae Duane (22:05):
Whoa,
Kate Capshaw (22:06):
that's cool.
Victoria Ford Smith (22:06):
Yeah, they're cool. Like, it's very
like, to me, the toys that herecommends, reminds me the toys
that like, parents give otherparents with baby showers with
beautiful wooden toys. And then,you know, the kid wants the
plastic doll instead. But thesevery kind of simple tactile toys
are part of kindergarten too.
The third point, again, it'sjust, I'm repeating myself at
this point, but just reallytaking cues from the child, so
(22:28):
paying attention to children. Hesays we should study childish
play and act upon its hints andthat schools should do justice
and honor to the nature of thechild. So this is kind of at the
center of the kindergartenmovement. So I wanted to ask
you, Kate and Anna Mae, likethis idea of the "nature of the
child" is the phrase that I findkind of complicated and weird. I
(22:49):
don't know what your responsesare to that.
Kate Capshaw (22:56):
Well, it feels very romantic with a capital R,
right? Sort of early 19thcentury idea that children are
trailing clouds of glory, and wejust sort of need to step back
and let them be theirspectacular holy selves. Which
is . . . I'm not so sure aboutthat. (laughter)In
Anna Mae Duane (23:14):
And in some ways, it's as othering as the
Puritanical Christian TemperanceUnion approach to it, right? The
child is just radicallydifferent from adults. And we
either shut them down or letthem blossom like flowers that
we take notes on. But there'sthis wall between us and them.
But what I really like about thekindergarten movement, is there
(23:36):
is this sense that a child doesactually have input, but I
wonder how that played out inpractice, right? Is it that you
watched and you took notes andyou decided what the nature of a
child requires? Or did people.
.. I don't imagine that peoplego around asking
kindergarteners? What do youwant to do today? Right, right.
That's not that's not whathappens. It's very structured.
(23:57):
And I'm sure they study howchildren respond to it, but
children are not running thecurriculum in the kindergarten
classroom.
Victoria Ford Smith (24:06):
Yeah, I mean, I think I first started
looking at Froebel andkindergartens, when I was
researching adult childcollaboration, because some of
the some of the ways thatFroebel describes education, I'm
like, oh, wow, this is likeadults working in partnership
with kids like this is makedecisions together. But then
when I actually, like theabstract philosophizing around
(24:27):
kindergarten suggests that, butthen the actual like you said,
the actual practice ofkindergarten doesn't do that.
It's still quite structured. Itis like adults need to pay
attention to children's natures,but then the adult is the
ultimate interpreter of thechild of their bodies and of
their words and their needs. Andso it didn't really quite go as
radically far as I thought itwould.
Kate Capshaw (24:49):
Yeah, that's interesting. I'm also concerned
about the toys and how gendermight play into the toys too. I
don't I don't know about thetoys particularly but they idea
of toys scripting, kind ofgendered behavior, other kinds
of behavior, like, who gets toplay with the balls and, and who
doesn't, you know, and who getsto do the erector set with the
(25:11):
peas. And I remember one of mychildren was taught in
kindergarten how to pour waterinto glasses. And I'm like,
that's really interesting thatmy daughter is being asked to
learn how to serve. But anyway,but yeah, I mean, toys are not
without ideological weight,right?
Victoria Ford Smith (25:28):
Yeah. Well, I don't know too much about the
gendering of the toys. One thingit did you really clearly was
gender who is able to interpretchildren? Like, I think that,
you know, up until this point, Imay be making a big
generalization, but a lot ofwriting about education and
childhood favored maleperspectives. And Froebel
(25:52):
actually said, you know, theteachers in the kindergarten in
this infant garden should bewomen, and they should be a
particular type of woman. Theyshould be young women who are
not yet married, who don't havechildren of their own yet. There
was and there was this kind ofsort of trusting women as
mothers and teachers andnurturers to interpret children.
But then of course, there's alsothis apparatus of like men
(26:14):
writing about it. And so itreally showed this contested
gendered idea of, of who was inthe school, too. I was also
thinking a little bit aboutlike, why did kindergarten catch
on at this moment in the 19thcentury? Because Dickens was
essentially writing his articleto convince people in England
like we should have morekindergartens, here.
kindergartens are so great. Partof it is a shift from the way
(26:37):
they were thinking aboutchildren moving a little bit
away from in certaincommunities, children as
economic value to children asemotional value, right? This is
a really simplified narrative.
But no, now we're valuingchildren as individuals and as
parts of our families. It's alsowas kind of influenced by
romanticism and the idea, youcan even hear it in the title,
(26:57):
like kindergarten, meaninginfant garden. And we're
starting to thinking about kidsas plants that need to be
nurtured, put in the correctsoil and trained to grow. But
also, like I said, this is thebeginning of child psychology
and child study, as it wascalled in the late 19th century.
So lots of interest in observingchildren and charting how they
(27:18):
grow in the stages they growthrough, which, you know, has
all kinds of weird gendered andraced and classed implications
too. But thinking about who isthe universal child? And what
does that child look like as asthey grow? That's happening too
it at the same time. But Iguess, looking forward, I think
we were hinting at this before,like a lot of the stuff that
(27:41):
seems natural aboutkindergarten, I think is still
kind of under question todayabout like, how should
kindergartens work? Like, howstructured should they be? Have
we kind of reached, you know,Froebel's reimagining of
children's bodies and minds? Idon't know.
Anna Mae Duane (27:58):
I mean, as a childhood studies scholar, as we
all are, I'm very excited aboutthe idea of children being in
power and children shaping thecurriculum, but then as an adult
who has been aroundkindergarteners, that idea also
terrifies me. Like, what wouldhappen if we really, you know,
(28:19):
let children do what they writewanted all the time, right. And
so I do think there is alwaysthis this line that education is
always. . . Kindergarten isabout shaping and controlling
children, but hopefully, withoutcrushing them, right? Without
crushing the delicate sproutsthat are coming up from the
(28:40):
soil. Whereas again, like ourfirst set of curriculum was
about absolutely pruning thoseplants to be one stalk that you
dictate.
Kate Capshaw (28:51):
A very pure white flower (laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (28:54):
A white flower that does not drink.
Victoria Ford Smith (28:56):
I was trying to remember my own
kindergarten experiences, whichlike I have a terrible memory.
So I and I'm like, I don'tremember, you know, being
completely let loose in theclassroom or anything. A
classroom is a place where yousit on your carpet square and
where you listen to stories. Andyes, the one free moment from
kindergarten I remember we wereon a field trip to a farm. We
(29:17):
were let roam for a while, but Iwas upset because the farmer's
dog stole my hot dog. And sothat's my sharpest memory from
kindergarten. (laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (29:28):
trauma.
Kate Capshaw (29:29):
That's a whole nother subject we should dig
into is the ubiquity of farmsand early how we imagine the
nature of children. I had verylittle desire as a child and be
involved in the farm apparently,I need to know about the cows
and . yeah
Anna Mae Duane (29:46):
Yeah, right.
Yeah. And there's, I mean, we'vetouched on this and other
episodes, how important we thinkit is the children you know,
they connect with animals, howmany animals are in children's
literature, the way children arelike animals and pets and kids
and all that sort of . . .thatconversation and what that tells
us about what we think childrenare and need. But that's for
another podcast, we are going totake a break. And when we
(30:10):
return, we're gonna move intothe 21st century and think about
how if it all we've enactedFroebel's vision of allowing
young people the power toactually create their curriculum
and what they learn.
Children's Table Podcast (30:25):
Music
Anna Mae Duane (30:30):
So Kate, in our own moments, do you think that
we have manifested Froebel'svision of allowing young people
to shape what they learn and howthey learn?
Kate Capshaw (30:43):
Well, I guess it's complicated. I don't think we
have entirely, of course,
Anna Mae Duane (30:49):
It's a trick question!
Kate Capshaw (30:51):
Yeah. But I think we are in this moment of intense
involvement in curricularchange, which is really
exciting. So as we all know,school curriculum at present is
designed and implemented byadult-run boards of education,
and these boards of educationand also state, you know,
(31:12):
expectations for curriculumgovern what happens in
classrooms across the country. Imean, what a student learns, can
vary kind of dramatically fromstate to state. And in response
to local decisions, or statewidedecisions, young people, I
think, really, across the 20thcentury have been involved in
demanding curricular change inthinking through the lessons
(31:35):
that are offered to them to sothere have been, you know,
walkouts, and boycotts and sitins, and we can talk about those
in future podcasts. Because Ithink they're really important
that, you know, they respond towhat's taught and what's not
present on the curriculum aswell.
I'd like to just think aboutwhat's happening in the current
moment, and the three of us arein Connecticut, and here in
(31:57):
Connecticut, we have thedistinction of being the first
state to require our public highschools to offer at least one
course in Black and LatinoStudies. So that's really
pretty, pretty amazing andterrific. So go Connecticut! Put
that out there. I wish it was arequirement rather than an
elective. It's a it's anelective, but you know, to step
(32:22):
Yeah, I guess it's the firststep. So So this shift really
has come about through acollaborative effort, parents,
young people, really thinkingthrough what's offered to them,
and how the story of ournational history is told in
schools and what gets excluded.
So there's a particular parentadvocate, who's also a leader. I
believe she's an attorney,Rashanda McCollum who talks
(32:44):
about an example that reallyprompted her to get involved
more deeply, where she, she hasa daughter, and the daughter was
asked to write about animportant historical figure. And
that's pretty classic kind ofexercise in elementary school.
And the teacher gives thestudents a list of 30 people
pick one of these persons. 29 ofthese people were white men. So
(33:07):
that yeah, that says a lot aboutwhat we think, you know,
history, how I guess whitecurriculum has constructed
history, who makes history,who's important, who children
should look up to how theyshould spend their time and, and
research and offer more and moreaccolades to the same folks over
and over again. So it's verydisturbing. And she, McCollum,
(33:29):
got involved as a result ofthat, in part, and there's
they're a fantastic grassrootscollective kind of groups, like
Students for Educational Justicehere in Connecticut. And I think
we can also see this, thischange happening in Connecticut,
around Asian and Asian Americanexperience. I'm not sure if you
(33:52):
guys are familiar with this, butthere's one group that I think
is really wonderful, it's calledMake Us Visible. And it's
responding to their elision,right, that complete silence and
aeration around Asian and AsianAmerican experience in the
curriculum. And so they'resupporting along with a bunch of
other groups, a bill that'sgoing through the Connecticut
legislature to requirecurriculum that represents the
(34:14):
experiences and histories ofAsian American and Pacific
Islander peoples. And the threeof us work at the University of
Connecticut and one of ourcolleagues, Professor Jason
Chang, who is also the head ofour Asian and Asian American
Studies Institute, and also aBoard of Ed member in one of our
local towns, which is great andalso a parent, he has been
(34:35):
working really with greatdetermination towards this
curricular intervention,especially because . . . we're
recording during the pandemic,and there's just been an
explosion of anti Asian violenceas a result. Um, so it's an
intervention that that is urgentand ethical, but also really
predicated on this particularmoment. So I wanted to just sort
(34:56):
of bring those two elements tothe surface. I think they're
really important to change theway that history in particular
gets taught in our schools.
Victoria Ford Smith (35:07):
I love the way that those examples
recognize both the ways thatkids and parents are working
within the systems that mandatecurriculum. So school boards and
the schools themselves andeducational systems. And also,
you know, there there aresometimes moments where kids
themselves, kind of try tosubvert those systems or
(35:28):
challenged them or you know, notcome to school, or you have to
sit-in, right, these kind ofmore informal activism that I
think is so important to kid'sculture right now. So I love
those examples for that for thatreason.
Kate Capshaw (35:40):
Yeah, it's it's really exciting when you can
work at the local level andactually see changes happening
that then catch on and become akind of statewide movement, I
think it's really quitegratifying.
Anna Mae Duane (35:52):
And I also love . .here we have students
advocating for what they want tolearn, and that that in both of
the examples you gave us, Kate,it's about what isn't being
taught, like what's beingwithheld from students who want
to learn about diversity, wantto learn about all the
(36:12):
contributors to Americanhistory, and by omitting that
it's lesson in itself, andthat's that students are
demanding broader curriculum tolearn more, right, which again,
goes against, you know, perhapsa stereotype we have that
students are apathetic or theydon't want access to more
knowledge, right? They want tokeep things easy. And there's .
. . no we need to complicatethese lessons, we need to it's a
(36:34):
complicated country. And if wewant to envision the country we
want to live in, and again,they, unlike the adults, we've
been talking about, for the pasttwo acts, right? They are
envisioning a future that theywant to live in. And it's one in
which they see themselvesrepresented. And they see a
complex version of both ourpasts and arguably our future, I
(36:58):
think, you know, even though ofcourse, there's a long way to
go, it seemed it's a reallyheartening set of examples.
Kate Capshaw (37:04):
Yeah. And you use the word representation, I think
that's absolutely key that, youknow, when when a person of
color especially looks at acurriculum that is completely
exclusionary. . You want to youwant to see yourself in the
story of America and story ofConnecticut in these instances.
Yeah, it's really, really vital.
And then another urgent kind oftransformation that's happening
at present has to do with antiracism in terms of teaching
(37:26):
practice. And this is alsosomething that I know there are
equity groups happening in highschools, especially sometimes
involving parents, sometimesinvolving school boards and
community members. But acrossthe country, I think we're
really seeing school's reckoningwith a history of white
supremacy built into thecurriculum, and really thinking
(37:46):
through ways to be moreproactively inclusive in their
teaching practice, both in thecontent and in how they engage
with student populations aswell. So it is really an
exciting time, a hopeful time,in some ways.
Anna Mae Duane (38:02):
Yeah, no, I know, that's been part of the
conversation around the changein the Connecticut curriculum is
that it's great to offer theseclasses, but offering two more
classes isn't going to get uswhere we need to go. We need to
reimagine every subject.
Kate Capshaw (38:17):
Yeah, that's, that's exactly right. Right. I
mean, the elective is awonderful thing on Black and
Latinx history. That'sabsolutely phenomenal. It's an
elective. So, you know, I thinklarger kinds of transformations
are really being urged at thispoint. So yeah, fingers crossed
Anna Mae Duane (38:34):
Yeah. And, and working to get. fantastic.
for good change in the future.
But, you know, it is kind of anice way to think about these,
these three moments side by sidethat we have, you know, that the
first with Anna mae talkinabout. It was very repressive
dictatorial kind of perspectiveAnd then the the idea o
kindergarten being a kind oresponse to recognition of th
(38:56):
value of children. And that sorof extends into this moment too
I mean, I think contemporry curriculum needs to be revi
ed because we respect children,nd young people, their investmen
s, and also and I believe tis wholeheartedly, that child
en want to know the truth. Tey don't want to be lied to,
(39:16):
nd telling the truth abut America's complicated histo
y, its accomplishments andts limitations is something t
at young people are really starvng for right n
Victoria Ford Smith (39:30):
Yeah I feel like it's the kids playing the
long game instead of the you'retrying to teach us sort of the
you know, how, how arecurriculum needs to change for
the kids that come after them
Kate Capshaw (39:41):
That's true. Go kids.
Victoria Ford Smith (39:43):
Go kids.
All right. So we would like tohear from you. What lessons have
you found perplexing ordisturbing or empowering at
school? You can email us at theChildren's Table Podcast at
gmail. Tweet us at Children'sTable Podcast or visit our
Instagram at the Children'sTable Podcast. Until next time
(40:08):
thanks for stopping by thechildren's table.
Welcome to the Children's Table Podcast
dedicated to the idea that youngpeople have always been
participants in history, andliterature and art and in
politics.
Victoria Ford Smith (00:13):
As three professors have spent our
careers studying the history andculture of childhood, we want to
share the questions we haveabout how adults have imagined
what childhood means, and howthose ideas have shaped the
lives of children, for betterand for worse.
Kate Capshaw (00:28):
Along the way, we will share the stories of some
brilliant, brave andgroundbreaking young people
we've gotten to know.
Victoria Ford Smith (00:36):
I'm Victoria, I'm Anna Mae.
Kate Capshaw (00:39):
I'm Kate. And let's head to the children's
table. Today we are talkingabout curriculum. If you want to
see what a culture hopes for, oris afraid of take a look at
their lesson plans. What wedecide to teach, and what we
(00:59):
decide to avoid teaching tellsus a lot about what we believe.
In this episode, we'll bethinking about curriculum. And
we'd like to start with bigoverarching questions. And so
our big questions for todayfocused on curricular change.
Where does curricular changecome from? How do schools
change? How do our ideas aboutchildren and childhood impact
(01:21):
curriculum? And when acurriculum does change, how
does it reflect our shifts inperception about children and
their needs, what they want whatthey need to learn? So these are
our big questions for ourdiscussion today. And we're
starting in the 19th century aswe tend to do with Anna Mae.
Anna Mae Duane (01:41):
Yes, starting with one aspect of curriculum
that I think a lot of us arefamiliar with, either if we're
remembering our own school days,or if we are the parents of
children who are attendingschools, or if you are a child
listening to us, and isattending school right now. And
it's the aspect of teachingchildren not to do something, to
(02:06):
not want what they mightotherwise want to do, which is
to train their behavior in waysthat adults feel would be
acceptable or desirable. Wethink about curriculum as the
knowledge that gets conveyed.
But it's also about withholdingknowledge or teaching children
not to want to know certainthings.
(02:27):
And I wanted to start with oneexample in curricular
development, that was really allabout convincing kids not to do
something, not to want what theymight otherwise want when they
grew up, and that would be astiff drink, right? That was
there was a large, decades longmovement dedicated to teaching
(02:48):
children exactly to avoidwanting such a thing. The
women's Christian Temperanceunion was this organization or
is one of the majororganizations dedicated to get
alcohol outlawed in the UnitedStates, which of course, they
eventually do with theratification of the 18th.
amendment in 1917. But thesewomen had been playing this long
(03:11):
game to get to 1917. They hadbeen working on this for
literally decades. temperance,which is the argument that
alcohol should be outlawed, andit is inherently evil, had been
a key part of the Americanpolitical landscape throughout
the 19th century, easily from1830 onward. By the 1870s and
(03:32):
1880s. The women's ChristianTemperance Union knew they were
fighting an uphill battle, sothey realized they needed to
invest in the future.
They needed to recruit children.
They turned to the schools andcreated a curriculum determined
to change kids into lifelongteetotallers. The woman behind
this, she was really quite aforce of nature was Mary
(03:52):
Hanchett Hunt. And she wasdetermined to get this
curriculum adopted in schoolsacross the country. And
remember, this is a time inwhich women did not yet get the
vote; temperance passes beforesuffrage passes in the United
States, so we can think aboutwhy that might be. Even though
she couldn't vote, she and othermembers--largely women--worked
(04:15):
with politicians to get laws onthe books requiring temperance
curriculum to be included inschools. By 1892, all but 10
states had adopted such laws.
There were textbooks teachingchildren to avoid alcohol; there
were lesson plans. There waseverything you could imagine.
And it was called the scientifictemperance instruction
(04:37):
curriculum. It is completely nota scientific curriculum.
They taught things like-- thisis just a few of the gems that
were passed down to students fordecades: The majority of beer
drinkers die of heart failure.
Alcohol will burn the skin offyour throat, one drop of the
smallest drink of alcoholprevents your blood from
(05:02):
absorbing oxygen. So one sip ofwine, forget it, especially if
you drink hard spirits, right?
Vodka, bourbon, something likethat. You become psychotic, and
your face and hands will turn amottled color, which is, you
know, especially in the 19thcentury, there's a lot of
anxiety about color in general.
But there's this idea that itwill literally change your
(05:23):
color, but in this case, fromarguably white to blue. Another
thing that will happen,according to this curriculum, is
alcohol causes the heart to beattoo fast. And this sets you on a
vicious cycle. So my heart isbeating too fast, because I've
had some wine. And somehow, Ican't stop drinking, now I have
(05:44):
to keep pounding drinks,according to this model, or my
heart will stop. So you haveonce you start drinking, you're
you know, that was a tenet ofsort of underlying a lot of
these lessons is that one drop,and you were a goner. So once
you take one glass of wine, orone sip of vodka, and you're on
(06:04):
this road to hell, right, you'renow . . your heart is addicted
to alcohol. And if you try tobecome sober, you will probably
die anyway. So just avoid at all
costs. Another gem (06:16):
alcohol turns the blood to water. And
one of my favorite examples isthat they would have in class
demonstrations againstscientific demonstrations that
someone would bring in a calf'sbrain,
Kate Capshaw (06:31):
as you do, you bring one to school,
Victoria Ford Smith (06:32):
school supply list, one calf's brain.
(laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (06:37):
I know in the teachers bag, and you would drop
it into grain alcohol. And ofcourse, it would look gross, it
would bubble it would decay. I'mactually kind of Tempted to Try
this because I don't know whathappened, you could potentially
Victoria Ford Smith (06:52):
do that on our Twitter feed just a live
live footage of caps bringalcohol
Kate Capshaw (06:59):
or not, it's fine.
(laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (07:03):
See if it converts anyone to the ways of
temperance? They will also do itsometimes with an egg. Which you
"this is your brain on drugs" soclearly, right? But this idea
of, you know, you have all thesevisual elements and these horror
stories and invariably wouldturn to a life of crime. there
was all this material justdesigned to really terrify
(07:26):
children. And you know, onething I was thinking about is
what it must have been like forkids to go home, and like watch
their father or mother drink aglass of wine when they've been
told all day in school thatthat's it. They're now on, you
know, they're on a road to aquick death and criminal
behavior and a number ofhorrors.
Kate Capshaw (07:48):
I wonder how many families were temperance
families, and it just wasn'tdone. And so you know, they're
hearing it in school, and thenit wasn't happening at home.
Anna Mae Duane (07:56):
Right.
Kate Capshaw (07:57):
But also, I wonder how it might have been inflicted
on immigrant communities intimes of anxiety about
immigration? Yeah, I don't, Idon't know anything about that
Anna Mae, so . . .
Anna Mae Duane (08:09):
I mean, I think it was a little of both.
Generally 19th century reformmovements are aimed at lower
income communities, andimmigrant communities. So I'm
sure there were temperancefamilies. But I'm sure that
there were children in theseclassrooms, again, like it was
taught in 40 states. I mean, youknow, there was a large
(08:31):
contingent that wereteetotallers. But you often had
people in the same family thatdidn't agree. So one of the
things that happened,eventually, maybe because kids
were so terrified by theselessons, and a vision of boiling
calf brains, a committee of 50it was called, and it was
comprised of scholars andscientists, who sort of got
(08:53):
together and analyzed theseteachings who sat down and said,
okay, it's called the scientifictemperance curriculum. How
scientific is it? And guesswhat? They determined that was
not scientific at all, was justnot true. It was largely
debunked. There was debates innewspapers about this. But there
are accounts of this curriculumbeing taught up until 1950. And
(09:16):
arguably, beyond, I didn't haveto look very long online to find
a lesson taught--I believe itwas in Georgia--in 1952--that
would not have been out of placein a 19th century classroom:
that you're taught these arethings that you know, one drop
and you're a goner.
Kate Capshaw (09:32):
Yeah, it's it's frightening to me right now.
Laughter
Anna Mae Duane (09:38):
It is making me want to drink!
Kate Capshaw (09:39):
I'm a goner. So the big question that we opened
with, of course, was thinkingthrough how curriculum reflects
the cultural imagination aroundchildhood. And so it seems that
what you're suggesting is thatthis culture is really
interested in instilling terrorin children or making children
(10:00):
afraid of their own desiresafraid of afraid of themselves,
right? And they can't reallytrust themselves around certain
elements like I'm thinking of .
. . I'm thinking I won't say ofcourse, but I'm thinking about,
you know, abstinence programswhere it's like all or nothing,
you know, as in the horrormovies where if you're a
teenager and have sex, you'redead. And so the abtinence
programs are very similar tothat kind of ethos too right?
Victoria Ford Smith (10:26):
Also, often using props like the calf . . .
I mean, we're joking about thecalf brain and the egg and like,
you compare that to the brain ondrugs campaign, but even
abstinence movements right oftenand I've heard of curriculum
where you're used-up chewinggum, if you've had sex, right?
and
Anna Mae Duane (10:43):
yeah,
Victoria Ford Smith (10:43):
there is something about like, desires
and food happening. I don'tknow. It's It's strange. The,
yeah, the metaphors that theyuse.
Anna Mae Duane (10:52):
Yeah. And I mean, with drugs, right? There
was always this argument thatone, you know, once you took one
whiff of pot, right, again, itwas a gateway drug that there's
no in between there's nomoderation possible.
Kate Capshaw (11:06):
I remember being in Catholic school. And there
were, a nun sent up two glassesof milk.
Victoria Ford Smith (11:12):
It is already bad. (laughter)
Kate Capshaw (11:15):
And the one glass of milk . I'm having a
flashback . . (laughter). Wasthe person who hasn't sinned,
and then the other glass ofmilk, she just dropped Hershey
syrup into it. And it was an allor nothing, right? You're either
holy or you're damned.
Victoria Ford Smith (11:32):
Well, a delicious chocolate milk is so
much better and or
Anna Mae Duane (11:37):
delicious.
Yes, yes!
Kate Capshaw (11:40):
But this "all or nothing" thing is really very
disturbing.
Victoria Ford Smith (11:43):
Well, and it also speaks to what we think
about children too, right? Likethe idea.
Anna Mae Duane (11:47):
ItYeah,
Victoria Ford Smith (11:47):
It seems to be connected to the idea that we
think children can't controlthemselves like that, that it is
all or nothing, because kidsdon't understand moderation,
right? I'm thinking about thoseYouTube videos of the
marshmallow experiment with kidswhere they can't handle not
eating the marshmallow, while anadult leaves the room that we
constantly have to policechildren's desires and
(12:10):
consumption.
Kate Capshaw (12:11):
Yeah
Anna Mae Duane (12:12):
Right that it's dangerous. And even the
marshmallow experiments, youknow, that's been so heavily
critiqued, because it depends onwhether the children tend to
trust adults, how manymarshmallows they've had in
their life, you know, there's somany other factors that surround
this one choice this childmakes. Of course, we put all
(12:33):
this meaning on. But I mean, Ithink this may be a particularly
American fetish. You know, justthere's so much about purity. I
mean, a drop of chocolate milk,what's his amazing chocolate
syrup and making chocolate milkand, you know, the liquor
changing your color? I mean, Ithink it ties into all sorts of
other anxieties, right, that weneed these very clean lines
(12:56):
between sinners and non sinnersdrinkers and non drinkers that
we want to teach children not toquestion. Right? Don't go over
the line. Don't Don't take onestep, right?
Kate Capshaw (13:08):
That seems to be very American in its approach.
Victoria Ford Smith (13:11):
Yeah, I was actually thinking like, I don't
know much. And by saying, Idon't know much, I don't really
know anything about alcoholculture in 19th century England
and children. But I know thatGeorge Cruickshank, who is
really famous for illustratingCharles Dickens, wrote
bowdlerized versions of fairytales that took all the alcohol
out of them and made themtemperance tales. And so for
(13:34):
example, like there was noalcohol at the wedding feast,
right, Cinderella and the princeor whatever. And Charles Dickens
wrote a very angry essay called"Frauds on the Fairies" about
how you're injecting thisdiscourse of temperance into
children's culture. And sothey're at least with some
resistance to that idea thatthis isn't something we need to
trouble them about. I'm not surehow widespread that feeling was.
(13:56):
But Charles Dickens would nothave dropped a calf brain in to
grain alcohol, I think.
Kate Capshaw (14:00):
Yeah, I think I need to learn more about the
British approach to be honest,more in line with with life
without remembering this WilliamHogarth image of Beer street and
Gin lane. Do Are you guysfamiliar with that?
Anna Mae Duane (14:13):
Oh, yes.
Unknown (14:14):
Yeah, so beer street is healthy gin lane is completely
depraved. But it's justinteresting that then it's not,
you know,
Victoria Ford Smith (14:21):
My college experience upholds that reading
a beer street and gin lane.
Yeah.
Anna Mae Duane (14:26):
Nice when you're in trouble. I mean, in 19th
century American culture,temperance and being anti
slavery, were just . . . if youdid one, you were part of the
other community. You were bothtemperance and anti slavery. But
there was some fallout becauseGerman immigrants who were
largely anti slavery and wereyou know felt quite passionate
(14:47):
about it, often were sort ofexcluded from American anti
slavery circles because theydrink beer. So right they there
was no wiggle room, you you'regetting your all your nothing.
So I mean, we kind of laughabout how silly these lessons
are, you know, and we wonder ifkids rolled their eyes at them,
you know, either they wereterrified, or maybe the way kids
(15:09):
kind of roll their eyes. Maybeit's some abstinence films, how
I mean, I think it's a mix ofboth. But I mean, this
curriculum went in the 1870s and1880s 1890s. And the 18th
amendment is passed by thisgeneration and their kids. So we
can't write it off. Right. Ithink what gets taught in
(15:29):
schools do shape sort of the thepaths children take and sort of
the shape of the culture. Sothese women, they played the
long game, and at least in theirterms, it paid off for them.
Now, I think we're going to takea break. And then when we
return, we're going totransition to a arguably kinder
and more kid friendly version ofhow kids learn or what they want
(15:53):
to learn. (Music break)
Victoria Ford Smith (15:58):
So I want to talk about kindergarten,
actually, where there typicallyis not a lot of booze, although,
I don't know, there could be,
Kate Capshaw (16:08):
There could be.
Victoria Ford Smith (16:09):
So really kindergarten, which is a
movement that's largely creditedto a German educator named
Friedrich Froebel. So youprobably have heard Froebel or
Froebelian as an adjective. Andit sort of inverts the idea of
curriculum that Anna Mae wasjust describing, as important to
temperance education. So thephilosophy of kindergarten, in
(16:30):
some ways thinks about kids, asteachers, kids telling adults
what to do. So adults shouldattend to what kids want and
should observe children andfollow their natural ways. And
only by treating kids that way,will they be really susceptible
to learning. And so this reallygained speed in the 19th
(16:51):
century. And it sounds really,it is really great. I'm not a
kindergarten hater. But it alsois really informed by adult
ideas of childhood. So I'll getto that get to that too. But I
wanted to actually start withCharles Dickens, who I promise,
I'm not obsessed with CharlesDickens. But he's returning
again as he, as he does. Hewrote a cover story for his his
(17:17):
newspaper Household Words onJuly 22 1855. And it was titled
"Infant Gardens." And this wasat a moment when kindergartens
were quite new. And so noteveryone would automatically
know this educational model. Andhe argues that Friedrich Froebel
had a childhood that led to thisparticular approach as an
(17:39):
educational innovator. So thisis Charlie's words. He wrote
that "the unsatisfied cravingsof Friedrich's childhood had
borne fruit within him. Heremembered the quick feelings
and perceptions, the incessantnimbleness of mind proper to his
first years, and how he had beenhemmed in and cramped, for want
(17:59):
of right encouragement andsympathy. There would be fewer
sullen, quarrelsome, dull-wittedmen or women, if there were
fewer children starved, or fedimproperly in heart, and brain."
Right? So there's this big ideathat like, if you're not allowed
to be a kid, as a kid, thenyou'll be a bad adult.
Anna Mae Duane (18:21):
Right? And I just I'm so struck with that,
quote, as it's, it's so inverseto what we were just describing,
right? That it's the child'sdesire, that's important to
cultivate, right? That, thatshutting down children's desire
is what makes them miserablepeople. We've just spent fifteen
minutes thinking about how fordecades, that was the main
(18:44):
thrust of an entire nationalcurriculum: to shut down
children's desires, or theirfuture desires.
Unknown (18:51):
Right. And it's very much about, it's interesting to
read some of Froebel's, writingsand people who are writing about
Froebel, who are students ofhim. It's a lot about like
watching children, and observingthem and seeing what they're
naturally drawn to. I mean,right now, it sounds creepy, but
it's also sort of aligning withthe beginning of educational
psychology and fields like that.
So this idea that we can observekids and learn what they want
(19:14):
and and give what they want tothem. So you're right. It's
very, it's very kind ofdifferent from what we were
first talking about.
Kate Capshaw (19:22):
Yeah. And that quote, I think, at the end of
it, it talks about sort offeeding the child's heart and
brain and things like that. So achild needs to be supported in
being a child by given thingsthat are childish, or something.
. ..
Victoria Ford Smith (19:35):
Yeah, this is kind of what I was thinking
about in terms of its payingattention to children and giving
them power, but also reallyinformed by ideas of childhood
because what children's heartsand brains need isn't always
super explicit. And a lot ofthese it's considered like
obviously, children naturallyneed some things or naturally
(19:57):
asked for them. So some of thethings that children naturally
need (20:00):
movement in play. Froebel was really into the idea of
play? I'm going to read a quotefrom Froebel, who has very
complicated sentences, kind oflike Henry James in writing
might be his translator. But hesays "we shall no longer
repressed their energies, tie uptheir body, shut their mouths
and declare that they worry usby the incessant putting of the
(20:20):
questions, which the father ofus has placed in their mouth."
So he wanted both mental andphysical freedom. And then
Dickens comments, "as a childgrows the most unaccustomed
positions into which it can besafely twisted, are those from
which oversee the greatestpleasure." So I get this idea of
like child pretzels, like, justbend them around. (laughter)
(20:42):
Charles Dickens was weird, butjust the idea that, you know,
they should be allowed to moveabout, they should be allowed to
play, you know, have freedom intheir bodies was really, really
important.
Kate Capshaw (20:52):
And it's hard for us in the 21st century to think
about how kind of radical thatwas the concept of embracing the
child's physicality. And, youknow, in part because of all the
kind of Puritan underpinnings ofthe culture, but yeah, I mean,
I'm just really struck by the,by the way, that it what you're
offering focuses on the pleasurein the child's body and sort of
(21:15):
mutability of a child's bodytoo.
Victoria Ford Smith (21:17):
Yeah, it to me, it's like the opposite of
swaddling, right, I think aboutswaddling as a practice of
really binding baby's bodies forsafety, and they thought it was
healthy to keep children stillin here. They're saying no, no,
let them be bent intounaccustomed poses. (laughter)
So movement and play. Anotherthing that was really central to
(21:39):
the kindergarten movement wasthe idea of toys as educational
tools. So Froebel had what wascalled a series of gifts that
children receive at differentparts of their education. And
they included things like filledballs of bright colors, wooden
blocks that were chopped up intodifferent fractions of
themselves. He was really intopea work, like p e a work, you
(22:01):
soften peas, and then put sticksinto them like erector sets.
Anna Mae Duane (22:05):
Whoa,
Kate Capshaw (22:06):
that's cool.
Victoria Ford Smith (22:06):
Yeah, they're cool. Like, it's very
like, to me, the toys that herecommends, reminds me the toys
that like, parents give otherparents with baby showers with
beautiful wooden toys. And then,you know, the kid wants the
plastic doll instead. But thesevery kind of simple tactile toys
are part of kindergarten too.
The third point, again, it'sjust, I'm repeating myself at
this point, but just reallytaking cues from the child, so
(22:28):
paying attention to children. Hesays we should study childish
play and act upon its hints andthat schools should do justice
and honor to the nature of thechild. So this is kind of at the
center of the kindergartenmovement. So I wanted to ask
you, Kate and Anna Mae, likethis idea of the "nature of the
child" is the phrase that I findkind of complicated and weird. I
(22:49):
don't know what your responsesare to that.
Kate Capshaw (22:56):
Well, it feels very romantic with a capital R,
right? Sort of early 19thcentury idea that children are
trailing clouds of glory, and wejust sort of need to step back
and let them be theirspectacular holy selves. Which
is . . . I'm not so sure aboutthat. (laughter)In
Anna Mae Duane (23:14):
And in some ways, it's as othering as the
Puritanical Christian TemperanceUnion approach to it, right? The
child is just radicallydifferent from adults. And we
either shut them down or letthem blossom like flowers that
we take notes on. But there'sthis wall between us and them.
But what I really like about thekindergarten movement, is there
(23:36):
is this sense that a child doesactually have input, but I
wonder how that played out inpractice, right? Is it that you
watched and you took notes andyou decided what the nature of a
child requires? Or did people.
.. I don't imagine that peoplego around asking
kindergarteners? What do youwant to do today? Right, right.
That's not that's not whathappens. It's very structured.
(23:57):
And I'm sure they study howchildren respond to it, but
children are not running thecurriculum in the kindergarten
classroom.
Victoria Ford Smith (24:06):
Yeah, I mean, I think I first started
looking at Froebel andkindergartens, when I was
researching adult childcollaboration, because some of
the some of the ways thatFroebel describes education, I'm
like, oh, wow, this is likeadults working in partnership
with kids like this is makedecisions together. But then
when I actually, like theabstract philosophizing around
(24:27):
kindergarten suggests that, butthen the actual like you said,
the actual practice ofkindergarten doesn't do that.
It's still quite structured. Itis like adults need to pay
attention to children's natures,but then the adult is the
ultimate interpreter of thechild of their bodies and of
their words and their needs. Andso it didn't really quite go as
radically far as I thought itwould.
Kate Capshaw (24:49):
Yeah, that's interesting. I'm also concerned
about the toys and how gendermight play into the toys too. I
don't I don't know about thetoys particularly but they idea
of toys scripting, kind ofgendered behavior, other kinds
of behavior, like, who gets toplay with the balls and, and who
doesn't, you know, and who getsto do the erector set with the
(25:11):
peas. And I remember one of mychildren was taught in
kindergarten how to pour waterinto glasses. And I'm like,
that's really interesting thatmy daughter is being asked to
learn how to serve. But anyway,but yeah, I mean, toys are not
without ideological weight,right?
Victoria Ford Smith (25:28):
Yeah. Well, I don't know too much about the
gendering of the toys. One thingit did you really clearly was
gender who is able to interpretchildren? Like, I think that,
you know, up until this point, Imay be making a big
generalization, but a lot ofwriting about education and
childhood favored maleperspectives. And Froebel
(25:52):
actually said, you know, theteachers in the kindergarten in
this infant garden should bewomen, and they should be a
particular type of woman. Theyshould be young women who are
not yet married, who don't havechildren of their own yet. There
was and there was this kind ofsort of trusting women as
mothers and teachers andnurturers to interpret children.
But then of course, there's alsothis apparatus of like men
(26:14):
writing about it. And so itreally showed this contested
gendered idea of, of who was inthe school, too. I was also
thinking a little bit aboutlike, why did kindergarten catch
on at this moment in the 19thcentury? Because Dickens was
essentially writing his articleto convince people in England
like we should have morekindergartens, here.
kindergartens are so great. Partof it is a shift from the way
(26:37):
they were thinking aboutchildren moving a little bit
away from in certaincommunities, children as
economic value to children asemotional value, right? This is
a really simplified narrative.
But no, now we're valuingchildren as individuals and as
parts of our families. It's alsowas kind of influenced by
romanticism and the idea, youcan even hear it in the title,
(26:57):
like kindergarten, meaninginfant garden. And we're
starting to thinking about kidsas plants that need to be
nurtured, put in the correctsoil and trained to grow. But
also, like I said, this is thebeginning of child psychology
and child study, as it wascalled in the late 19th century.
So lots of interest in observingchildren and charting how they
(27:18):
grow in the stages they growthrough, which, you know, has
all kinds of weird gendered andraced and classed implications
too. But thinking about who isthe universal child? And what
does that child look like as asthey grow? That's happening too
it at the same time. But Iguess, looking forward, I think
we were hinting at this before,like a lot of the stuff that
(27:41):
seems natural aboutkindergarten, I think is still
kind of under question todayabout like, how should
kindergartens work? Like, howstructured should they be? Have
we kind of reached, you know,Froebel's reimagining of
children's bodies and minds? Idon't know.
Anna Mae Duane (27:58):
I mean, as a childhood studies scholar, as we
all are, I'm very excited aboutthe idea of children being in
power and children shaping thecurriculum, but then as an adult
who has been aroundkindergarteners, that idea also
terrifies me. Like, what wouldhappen if we really, you know,
(28:19):
let children do what they writewanted all the time, right. And
so I do think there is alwaysthis this line that education is
always. . . Kindergarten isabout shaping and controlling
children, but hopefully, withoutcrushing them, right? Without
crushing the delicate sproutsthat are coming up from the
(28:40):
soil. Whereas again, like ourfirst set of curriculum was
about absolutely pruning thoseplants to be one stalk that you
dictate.
Kate Capshaw (28:51):
A very pure white flower (laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (28:54):
A white flower that does not drink.
Victoria Ford Smith (28:56):
I was trying to remember my own
kindergarten experiences, whichlike I have a terrible memory.
So I and I'm like, I don'tremember, you know, being
completely let loose in theclassroom or anything. A
classroom is a place where yousit on your carpet square and
where you listen to stories. Andyes, the one free moment from
kindergarten I remember we wereon a field trip to a farm. We
(29:17):
were let roam for a while, but Iwas upset because the farmer's
dog stole my hot dog. And sothat's my sharpest memory from
kindergarten. (laughter)
Anna Mae Duane (29:28):
trauma.
Kate Capshaw (29:29):
That's a whole nother subject we should dig
into is the ubiquity of farmsand early how we imagine the
nature of children. I had verylittle desire as a child and be
involved in the farm apparently,I need to know about the cows
and . yeah
Anna Mae Duane (29:46):
Yeah, right.
Yeah. And there's, I mean, we'vetouched on this and other
episodes, how important we thinkit is the children you know,
they connect with animals, howmany animals are in children's
literature, the way children arelike animals and pets and kids
and all that sort of . . .thatconversation and what that tells
us about what we think childrenare and need. But that's for
another podcast, we are going totake a break. And when we
(30:10):
return, we're gonna move intothe 21st century and think about
how if it all we've enactedFroebel's vision of allowing
young people the power toactually create their curriculum
and what they learn.
Children's Table Podcast (30:25):
Music
Anna Mae Duane (30:30):
So Kate, in our own moments, do you think that
we have manifested Froebel'svision of allowing young people
to shape what they learn and howthey learn?
Kate Capshaw (30:43):
Well, I guess it's complicated. I don't think we
have entirely, of course,
Anna Mae Duane (30:49):
It's a trick question!
Kate Capshaw (30:51):
Yeah. But I think we are in this moment of intense
involvement in curricularchange, which is really
exciting. So as we all know,school curriculum at present is
designed and implemented byadult-run boards of education,
and these boards of educationand also state, you know,
(31:12):
expectations for curriculumgovern what happens in
classrooms across the country. Imean, what a student learns, can
vary kind of dramatically fromstate to state. And in response
to local decisions, or statewidedecisions, young people, I
think, really, across the 20thcentury have been involved in
demanding curricular change inthinking through the lessons
(31:35):
that are offered to them to sothere have been, you know,
walkouts, and boycotts and sitins, and we can talk about those
in future podcasts. Because Ithink they're really important
that, you know, they respond towhat's taught and what's not
present on the curriculum aswell.
I'd like to just think aboutwhat's happening in the current
moment, and the three of us arein Connecticut, and here in
(31:57):
Connecticut, we have thedistinction of being the first
state to require our public highschools to offer at least one
course in Black and LatinoStudies. So that's really
pretty, pretty amazing andterrific. So go Connecticut! Put
that out there. I wish it was arequirement rather than an
elective. It's a it's anelective, but you know, to step
(32:22):
Yeah, I guess it's the firststep. So So this shift really
has come about through acollaborative effort, parents,
young people, really thinkingthrough what's offered to them,
and how the story of ournational history is told in
schools and what gets excluded.
So there's a particular parentadvocate, who's also a leader. I
believe she's an attorney,Rashanda McCollum who talks
(32:44):
about an example that reallyprompted her to get involved
more deeply, where she, she hasa daughter, and the daughter was
asked to write about animportant historical figure. And
that's pretty classic kind ofexercise in elementary school.
And the teacher gives thestudents a list of 30 people
pick one of these persons. 29 ofthese people were white men. So
(33:07):
that yeah, that says a lot aboutwhat we think, you know,
history, how I guess whitecurriculum has constructed
history, who makes history,who's important, who children
should look up to how theyshould spend their time and, and
research and offer more and moreaccolades to the same folks over
and over again. So it's verydisturbing. And she, McCollum,
(33:29):
got involved as a result ofthat, in part, and there's
they're a fantastic grassrootscollective kind of groups, like
Students for Educational Justicehere in Connecticut. And I think
we can also see this, thischange happening in Connecticut,
around Asian and Asian Americanexperience. I'm not sure if you
(33:52):
guys are familiar with this, butthere's one group that I think
is really wonderful, it's calledMake Us Visible. And it's
responding to their elision,right, that complete silence and
aeration around Asian and AsianAmerican experience in the
curriculum. And so they'resupporting along with a bunch of
other groups, a bill that'sgoing through the Connecticut
legislature to requirecurriculum that represents the
(34:14):
experiences and histories ofAsian American and Pacific
Islander peoples. And the threeof us work at the University of
Connecticut and one of ourcolleagues, Professor Jason
Chang, who is also the head ofour Asian and Asian American
Studies Institute, and also aBoard of Ed member in one of our
local towns, which is great andalso a parent, he has been
(34:35):
working really with greatdetermination towards this
curricular intervention,especially because . . . we're
recording during the pandemic,and there's just been an
explosion of anti Asian violenceas a result. Um, so it's an
intervention that that is urgentand ethical, but also really
predicated on this particularmoment. So I wanted to just sort
(34:56):
of bring those two elements tothe surface. I think they're
really important to change theway that history in particular
gets taught in our schools.
Victoria Ford Smith (35:07):
I love the way that those examples
recognize both the ways thatkids and parents are working
within the systems that mandatecurriculum. So school boards and
the schools themselves andeducational systems. And also,
you know, there there aresometimes moments where kids
themselves, kind of try tosubvert those systems or
(35:28):
challenged them or you know, notcome to school, or you have to
sit-in, right, these kind ofmore informal activism that I
think is so important to kid'sculture right now. So I love
those examples for that for thatreason.
Kate Capshaw (35:40):
Yeah, it's it's really exciting when you can
work at the local level andactually see changes happening
that then catch on and become akind of statewide movement, I
think it's really quitegratifying.
Anna Mae Duane (35:52):
And I also love . .here we have students
advocating for what they want tolearn, and that that in both of
the examples you gave us, Kate,it's about what isn't being
taught, like what's beingwithheld from students who want
to learn about diversity, wantto learn about all the
(36:12):
contributors to Americanhistory, and by omitting that
it's lesson in itself, andthat's that students are
demanding broader curriculum tolearn more, right, which again,
goes against, you know, perhapsa stereotype we have that
students are apathetic or theydon't want access to more
knowledge, right? They want tokeep things easy. And there's .
. . no we need to complicatethese lessons, we need to it's a
(36:34):
complicated country. And if wewant to envision the country we
want to live in, and again,they, unlike the adults, we've
been talking about, for the pasttwo acts, right? They are
envisioning a future that theywant to live in. And it's one in
which they see themselvesrepresented. And they see a
complex version of both ourpasts and arguably our future, I
(36:58):
think, you know, even though ofcourse, there's a long way to
go, it seemed it's a reallyheartening set of examples.
Kate Capshaw (37:04):
Yeah. And you use the word representation, I think
that's absolutely key that, youknow, when when a person of
color especially looks at acurriculum that is completely
exclusionary. . You want to youwant to see yourself in the
story of America and story ofConnecticut in these instances.
Yeah, it's really, really vital.
And then another urgent kind oftransformation that's happening
at present has to do with antiracism in terms of teaching
(37:26):
practice. And this is alsosomething that I know there are
equity groups happening in highschools, especially sometimes
involving parents, sometimesinvolving school boards and
community members. But acrossthe country, I think we're
really seeing school's reckoningwith a history of white
supremacy built into thecurriculum, and really thinking
(37:46):
through ways to be moreproactively inclusive in their
teaching practice, both in thecontent and in how they engage
with student populations aswell. So it is really an
exciting time, a hopeful time,in some ways.
Anna Mae Duane (38:02):
Yeah, no, I know, that's been part of the
conversation around the changein the Connecticut curriculum is
that it's great to offer theseclasses, but offering two more
classes isn't going to get uswhere we need to go. We need to
reimagine every subject.
Kate Capshaw (38:17):
Yeah, that's, that's exactly right. Right. I
mean, the elective is awonderful thing on Black and
Latinx history. That'sabsolutely phenomenal. It's an
elective. So, you know, I thinklarger kinds of transformations
are really being urged at thispoint. So yeah, fingers crossed
Anna Mae Duane (38:34):
Yeah. And, and working to get. fantastic.
for good change in the future.
But, you know, it is kind of anice way to think about these,
these three moments side by sidethat we have, you know, that the
first with Anna mae talkinabout. It was very repressive
dictatorial kind of perspectiveAnd then the the idea o
kindergarten being a kind oresponse to recognition of th
(38:56):
value of children. And that sorof extends into this moment too
I mean, I think contemporry curriculum needs to be revi
ed because we respect children,nd young people, their investmen
s, and also and I believe tis wholeheartedly, that child
en want to know the truth. Tey don't want to be lied to,
(39:16):
nd telling the truth abut America's complicated histo
y, its accomplishments andts limitations is something t
at young people are really starvng for right n
Victoria Ford Smith (39:30):
Yeah I feel like it's the kids playing the
long game instead of the you'retrying to teach us sort of the
you know, how, how arecurriculum needs to change for
the kids that come after them
Kate Capshaw (39:41):
That's true. Go kids.
Victoria Ford Smith (39:43):
Go kids.
All right. So we would like tohear from you. What lessons have
you found perplexing ordisturbing or empowering at
school? You can email us at theChildren's Table Podcast at
gmail. Tweet us at Children'sTable Podcast or visit our
Instagram at the Children'sTable Podcast. Until next time
(40:08):
thanks for stopping by thechildren's table.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com