← Back to the episode · Listen to this episode
Inclusion within early childhood education is often framed in terms of access and placement; however, a Froebelian perspective encourages a deeper understanding of inclusion as participation, agency, and belonging. This is particularly significant for children with additional support needs (ASN), who may be physically present within educational settings yet experience subtle forms of exclusion. This paper explores how Froebelian principles can inform more meaningful and equitable inclusion by examining the relationship between environment, pedagogy, and participation.
Inclusion, Presence, and Structural Exclusion
Children with ASN are rarely excluded outright from early childhood settings. Instead, exclusion frequently occurs in less visible ways, such as reduced expectations, rigid routines, or environments designed around normative assumptions of development. These practices can limit children’s opportunities for engagement and contribute to experiences of marginalisation.(Allen et al., 2022).
The concept of “corridor children,” as described by Lloyd (2022), highlights this issue. It refers to children who are physically present in educational settings but are removed from meaningful participation due to environmental or structural barriers. This illustrates that inclusion cannot be equated with physical presence alone. Rather, it must be understood in terms of the quality of children’s experiences and their ability to engage as active participants.
This aligns with broader critiques of education systems as reproducing social inequalities, where children’s access to meaningful learning opportunities is shaped by existing structural conditions.
Froebelian Principles and the Whole Child
Froebelian pedagogy offers a valuable framework for addressing these challenges. Froebel (1887) conceptualised the child as a holistic being, whose development encompasses emotional, social, physical, and intellectual dimensions. Central to this philosophy is the idea that learning occurs through self-activity, play, and interaction with a supportive environment.
Bruce (2012) extends these ideas, emphasising that Froebelian practice requires educators to attend to the “whole child” and to create environments that respect and support children’s agency. From this perspective, inclusion is not an additional consideration but a fundamental aspect of pedagogical practice.
When environments are rigid or when inclusion relies solely on adult intervention, children’s opportunities for meaningful engagement are restricted. Froebelian pedagogy instead advocates for environments that are responsive, flexible, and designed to support diverse ways of being and learning.
Environment, Play, and Participation
The role of the environment is central to understanding inclusion in practice. Research indicates that children with ASN benefit from play-based, flexible learning environments where adults adopt a responsive and facilitative role (McNair et al., 2019). In such contexts, children are able to explore, express themselves, and engage with peers in meaningful ways.
Play, within a Froebelian framework, is not simply an activity but the primary medium through which children learn. It enables children to develop relationships, negotiate identities, and construct knowledge. However, the extent to which play can fulfil this role depends on the conditions in which it occurs.
Environments that are overly structured, sensory-overstimulating, or restrictive may limit children’s ability to participate fully. In contrast, thoughtfully designed spaces can promote inclusion by offering multiple entry points for engagement and supporting diverse needs and preferences.
Rethinking Inclusion in Practice
The discussion highlights the need for practitioners to critically reflect on how their environments, routines, and assumptions shape children’s experiences. Inclusion must be understood as an ongoing, relational process that requires attention to both individual needs and systemic factors.
This involves asking critical questions:
Whose needs are prioritised within the environment?
Which children are fully participating, and which are marginalised?
How might spaces and practices be reimagined to support greater equity?
By adopting a Froebelian lens, practitioners can move beyond a focus on compliance towards a more meaningful engagement with inclusion as a matter of social justice and pedagogical responsibility.
Inclusion in early childhood education extends beyond physical presence to encompass participation, agency, and belonging. For children with ASN, experiences of exclusion are often subtle but significant, shaped by environmental, structural, and pedagogical factors.
Froebelian principles provide a valuable framework for addressing these challenges by emphasising the importance of the whole child, the centrality of play, and the role of responsive environments. By critically reflecting on practice and designing inclusive spaces, educators can move from tokenistic inclusion towards genuine participation.
In doing so, early childhood settings can become spaces where all children are not only present, but valued, engaged, and able to thrive.
References
Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2022). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1–34.
Bruce, T. (2012). Early childhood practice: Froebel today. SAGE.
Froebel, F. (1887). The education of man. D. Appleton & Company.
Lloyd, L. (2022). Raising the SEN-Betweeners. Routledge.
McNair, L. J., Bhana, D., & Dyer, S. (2019). Froebelian approaches and inclusive early childhood practice. Early Years, 39(1), 3–17.