“If a child is not doing well in school, that school should not be able to sleep peacefully,” is one of Grete Arro’s best-known and most controversial statements. This is not a metaphor or an emotional exclamation. It is her science-based view of education, which should always focus on the child’s development, not the convenience of the system.
One summer day, ELIIS CEO Rasmus Gross and educational and environmental psychologist Grete Arro met. This meeting began an honest and deep conversation that ranged from child development to teacher burnout, from the internal organization of kindergartens to the failure of the education system and the hope of creating a new, research-based school.
Grete Arro does not hold back. She says outright that the discussion on how to achieve a learning environment that best supports the development and well-being of learners, including in early childhood education, is still ongoing. There are practices in education that do not necessarily support every child. Knowledge that could help both children and teachers exists - it's just that science changes so quickly that existing knowledge does not reach everyday practices quickly enough, and there is often no opportunity to practice practices based on new knowledge with the support of experts. She argues that knowledge of the psyche is not yet as systematic and appropriately applied in teacher training as it could be. And she believes that the basis of learning is not discipline, but self-regulation.
Is this view of education too idealistic or simply ahead of its time? Why is he and his colleagues creating a completely new school? Does our teacher training need a revolution? And does artificial intelligence even have a place in early childhood education?
In this interview, Grete Arro talks not only about education, but also about why good intentions are not always good education – and why going outside can be much more important than completing worksheets.
You are an educational psychologist and now a parent. Has being a mother changed your view of the Estonian education system in any way?
Not really. I've always had these concerns and questions about the education system, but now they're perhaps more personally felt. I don't feel like I'm somehow "awake" or surprised that something is wrong. I've seen these systemic problems for a long time. And now that my own child is going to kindergarten, I follow the same principle that we've always talked about: the environment must support development, not just be an organizational framework. For example, it's very important to me that a child can spend a lot of time outdoors, but some kindergartens are more room-centered.
We are also working with colleagues to create a new school — a research-based environment that supports teachers' professional development and children's development. We are not doing this to criticize what is already there, but to create an opportunity to demonstrate the research-based practices we know here on the ground.
The plan to create a new school sounds very exciting! What makes this school more than just another educational institution? What is the idea behind this school and what is it based on?
Yes, this is a very big and important undertaking for me. My colleagues and I are creating a school that would be more of a research-based model that would allow all teachers, both future and current, to learn, practice, and think about teaching in a way that is truly grounded in what we know about child development and learning. Our goal is not just to teach students, but also to be a training school for teachers, their professional development, and their research practice.
The school is designed so that researchers, practitioners and students work together - the latter could then, with the support of lecturers/teachers, practice in depth, do their own practice or do observation tasks. In addition, there would be a stronger connection between subject teachers and university subject didactics, who could partly be the same people. There is nothing more practical than good theory - I would like to show that contrasting theory and practice is nothing more than a lack of understanding of how science works. You can also teach without theory, but you can always do better with theory.
In addition, we also want to test those “simple” organizational changes that have a big impact: for example, what the length of a lesson could be, how collaborative teaching works, what the daily workload is for teachers and students, or how to shape the daily rhythm in a way that supports not only knowledge acquisition, but also mental well-being.
But in the long run, we see this as a model, not just one specific school. We don't want to build a one-off example, but to create a mindset that could be applied to every school. That's really what's most important: that it's not about one house or one team, but about a changed understanding of how education can work.
When was the last time you learned something completely new – something that shook you or forced you to rethink your thinking?
I learn every day.
Living with a child is a big process of learning self-regulation. Every day you have to ask yourself how to respond to situations in a way that you don't harm, but support. How to notice which environmental factors (i.e. social environment) can lead to later troubles, what can be prevented; how to adapt to constant changes, not to be surprised by such a thing as natural development. For example, situations where you think later: "Ahah, this mess could have been prevented if I had noticed earlier." This is a constant reflection on yourself, not just that "the child learned something", but that I learned.
Learning never stops. Learning and adaptation have more in common than they do different features.
In one article, you said quite provocatively: "If a child is not doing well in school, that school should be closed." Does the same apply to kindergartens - that if a child is not doing well there, the kindergarten should be rethought or closed?
Grete laughs :)
I think the question is not just whether a school or kindergarten should close itself, but rather: why do we even create environments where a child is not good? What is the point of such a place? If a child is constantly afraid, anxious or ashamed, if they do not feel safe and valued, then development cannot take place there. And this is not just an emotional state, but a very practical question: a child cannot learn or concentrate if their nervous system is in a state of danger.
However, “being good” does not mean the absence of cognitive effort - just as becoming physically more skilled or tougher is not possible without a sense of effort, and this is true for all skill levels. Emotional strain and cognitive strain are two completely different things - one of them very harmful and the other very beneficial, and it is unfortunate that they are somehow linked together in many people's minds - as if effort could not or should not exist without strain.
Another topic is maintaining attention and practicing it. According to my knowledge, it is reasonable for young children not to disturb their attention - that is, when they are focusing on something. Therefore, it might be possible to observe the child and their concentration or to structure the activities in such a way that long-term concentration can occur at all. If the activities change involuntarily, unexpectedly and incomprehensibly for the child, this may not be the best way to practice concentration. I assume that the child should be able to focus on something (assuming that the activity is not harmful to anyone or anything) for as long as they feel that it is necessary or meaningful for them. Our task is not to choose for them, but to create an environment that is based on the laws of child development and where a particular child is at the moment in their development. In my opinion, there is nothing very simple or intuitive about it - even as a psychologist, without having specifically studied creating such a preschool developmental environment, it is certainly not something that can be done easily or intuitively. I don't think anyone should think that understanding and supporting development is easy.
There are voices in society who claim that education, including early childhood education, has become too “soft” – that too little is demanded of children, that there is a lack of discipline and boundaries. How do you respond to such opinions?
It would be good to immediately ask back and investigate the reasons, assumptions, and background behind these opinions - what exactly is this opinion based on? Opinions can come from various sources, including observations and observations, but the question is what exactly do these observations mean and what context do they come from.
When we talk about discipline, it seems to me that on the one hand it means external control - someone establishes and demands some rules and on the other hand some behavior shown by children - so that children then seem to demonstrate compliance with these rules. Of course, we want children to socialize and learn to live by taking care of themselves and others and by doing activities that are useful from the point of view of their own development. It's just that behavior that looks almost the same on the outside can come from different sources. We can also imagine a group room where children are also really engaged in various activities that develop them, but instead of being "disciplined" for this, they are helped to learn to regulate themselves. This is more complicated than it sounds; it requires doing certain things as well as not doing certain things, based on an understanding of development - and the impact of our own actions - on children.
When we impose discipline from the outside and apply rules, commands, punishments, we actually take away the opportunity for the child to practice self-management. The child may then outwardly obey, but the reason for this is not the development of skill, but rather fear, which is why he does not learn and practice the processes that would help him, step by step, to behave more and more self-managed.
So, in fact, the question is not whether education is “soft” or “strict” - these are probably not always necessarily meaningful descriptors. Education must be full of unconditional warmth, understanding and care for children and development, from this perspective, there cannot be too much “softness”. There cannot be too much respect, esteem for the child. Simply by understanding development, you can design the environment and communication in such a way that, first of all, certain things do not happen - do not make kindergarten children listen to long instructions on how to do something, because that does not make sense developmentally. Or do not interrupt when they are immersed in something, but create a daily schedule where immersion does not need to be disturbed. In addition, understanding what is developmentally good to practice at a certain point - children of a certain age do not need to interrupt their activity to be “friendly” so that the other can also play with the same thing - on the contrary, both should practice what is currently being done - one the current activity and the other waiting for their turn. But honestly, without systematic years of thorough observation-based research, none of us would have figured out this knowledge.
Is it even possible to support a child's development in a municipal kindergarten that does not apply Montessori pedagogy so that they are internally motivated and self-regulated?
I honestly don't know and I don't know if it has been thoroughly studied from this perspective. I think that kindergartens are extremely different and the focus is not really on Montessori, but on a pedagogy that consciously takes development into account; it seems to me that Montessori has simply developed this practical application in the most plausible way. What supposedly doesn't work is mixing some development-supporting elements with non-developmental practices. I think that every kindergarten can constantly approach creating a better development environment, certainly Montessori kindergartens - there probably isn't a perfect environment after all :)
What worries me is that the most developmentally aware education possible is not always available to all children. A comprehensive and long Montessori training could be part of our university system and available to all teachers working in regular schools and kindergartens if they wish. When a teacher tries to change something within the system according to their own better understanding, they often feel that they have to “fight the system”, because everything may not work when taken out of context. I have sometimes been told stories about kindergarten teachers themselves noticing how some of the aforementioned principles are beneficial to children, but for example the daily schedule prescribes something else, so that there is a contradiction between what the teacher considers reasonable and what the general structure of the day is.
Have you had any positive experiences in Estonian kindergartens – examples of how a typical kindergarten truly works based on a child's development?
Yes, definitely! For example, I recently visited a kindergarten where the director invited me to visit their kindergarten and discuss various topics with the teachers. When I touched on any principle related to development, the answer was: “Yes, we do that too.” They did not call themselves a kindergarten that followed any pedagogical direction, but their activities were based, in my opinion and as much as I understood from this reflection, on supporting the child’s development and independence, on continuity, and on enabling concentration. This kindergarten was also very focused on creating a strong contact with nature for children.
So, in my opinion, kindergartens have the freedom to support development and independence. If the management and teachers are very interested in development and supporting it, then they can create something very effective, even if some steps may seem too bold, too “unregulated”, e.g. whether children should practice certain skills themselves or not. We do not necessarily need the “right brand”, but a substantive understanding – what environment, pace and way of communicating really help a child grow and learn. And these principles are quite universal.
In your opinion, what are the three biggest systemic problems in Estonian early childhood education today?
First of all, I don't know either :) But it seems to me that one topic is a thorough understanding of the development of executive functions - since this topic is in a way new (and in a way very old), then, perhaps we still need time to think about this knowledge through the kindergarten day and think about whether the things that "go wrong" with children are perhaps due to the fact that we ourselves did not support development in the necessary way. Executive functions - inhibition processes, working memory/attention, switching - do not develop by themselves, but need a consciously designed environment. This is the area where kindergartens around the world probably have the greatest room for development.
Secondly, I think that perhaps the entire education system is still searching for the best understanding of what is developmentally normal and what is something that needs intervention - and what could be the root cause of a problem at all. For example, the background factor of aggressive behavior could be a speech therapy concern that prevents normal speech development - what is the point of intervention in this case and how long should it take to solve the root cause of the problem? And at the same time, for example, the child feels incredibly bad on a daily basis because he cannot create normal friendships, without being to blame for it in any way; and it is not at all excluded that he is made to feel guilty and isolated from the group. In the case of a development process that is so “normal” or requires intervention, it could be completely excluded from the picture that the child or the parent, who is not an expert, should feel guilty about the development or peculiarities. Or another example - when a toddler forgets things or a teenager asks why something is being learned, this is often taken as a “problem”, not as a natural phase of development. As a result, children are criticized for behavior that is completely expected at this stage of development.
It is possible that sometimes we - being human - forget what kind of emotional background makes learning possible. Learning cannot take place if a child feels stress - fear, shame, anger, grief or any other negative emotion. If the relationship with a child is not unconditionally respectful and warm - including with a child who is currently in trouble and this trouble may manifest itself in a surprising or disturbing way for an adult, then it cannot be assumed that this child will be able to progress in the best way.
In conclusion, children in trouble need professional support and if we cannot provide it, then there is probably a fault in the system that does not give the teacher the knowledge, skills or other resources that he or she needs in this case. The least we can do with a child in need of help if we cannot help is not to take away their warmth - that they continue to feel that they are valuable, needed, safe and cared for. It is completely understandable that “one teacher cannot deal with a child in need of individual support all day”, but this is probably where learning takes place - this child does not need one-on-one support all the time, but probably appropriate support. The ideal system would be one where a child in trouble creates a desire to learn and understand - “ahaha, I do not know how to act in this situation, therefore there is something here that allows me to learn something more in terms of development.” The fear is that there is no time for such an attitude and this is not the fault of teachers, but probably of other levels.
One of the most difficult situations in kindergartens occurs when teachers perceive that a child may have a special need, but the parent is not ready to admit it. What to do in such a situation? Where should cooperation begin and how to support both the child and the parent?
A parent usually sees their child at home, which is a similar environment, and perhaps the child does not experience the difficulties there that teachers notice every day in kindergarten, and vice versa - teachers do not experience the difficulties that parents may experience with the same children. But this does not mean that anyone is lying. We are all different in different environments, and this applies to both adults and children. We are different at work than at home, children are different at home than in kindergarten. So “but he is not like this at home” is correct and a sign that we are at the first, not the last, step of cooperation.
Perhaps a completely separate topic is learning and practicing how to talk to parents about development? The first thing is to practice taking the parent's perspective - a parent does not see their child in the context of other children every day, they do not have a pedagogical education - they may not know what is "normal" and what is different from it, what is developmentally expected and what is a little less so; they may also simply need some time to react to finding out that there is something that should be dealt with separately.
Good cooperation has probably been sought for a long time, so that whatever the chain of problems (e.g. the aforementioned speech therapy problem, which can lead to socio-emotional problems) the entire possible team that understands each other well will come to the rescue - teachers, parents, speech therapists, psychologists, Rajaleidja. All this work should not be in any way formal, but the goal of the cooperation should be to rehabilitate the child, solve the problems - because most problems can be solved. Of course, also restoring the child's self-confidence and ability to create good relationships, and ensuring that his or her human dignity and sense of security are preserved throughout the process. If the problems persist, for example in the form of the child simply being isolated from other children, then this does not reflect a knowledge-based approach.
The most important thing is that the child feels cared for. Not rejected, not judged based on what he “should be”. A child cannot develop out of shame, being ashamed of something that is not his fault. He needs understanding and warmth - that is, an environment built on scientific principles - and this is not just a “nice extra” but an indispensable prerequisite for development.
You have said that “being outdoors is a child's human right.” Why is being outdoors so important for a child ?
I have jokingly said that the room is a diagnosis. In fact, and I am not joking, the urban environment is in some ways a psychologically difficult phenomenon to tolerate. In the case of children - of course, children and ages are different - you can sometimes see how different they are indoors and outdoors, but in both cases a lot depends on what the room is like and what the outdoor space is like. A room organized in some ways can of course be very supportive; and a certain type of outdoor space can be a very unsupportive place. However, I think that based on a lot of research data on being in nature and outdoors, there are good reasons why children should not “go outdoors”, but “go indoors” - that is, if possible, come from the outside to the room from time to time, eat, sleep, change clothes, etc., but spend most of their free time and LIGHT daylight hours outdoors. I believe that most adults would not want to be constantly indoors either - but the countless effects of nature on the well-being of people of all ages are more than just fresh air. Being in nature supports well-being and mental and physical health: self-regulation, attention processes, psychological well-being and stress recovery; movement, vision, the immune system, when we are in nature as much as possible and the quality of sleep at night, and of course learning. More time outdoors is associated with less overweight. There are many references to this, but as a simple summary, here is a link: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/04/nurtured-nature
So for me, the question is not just “can children go outside”, but how natural the outdoor environment is, how long they are there and what they can do there . A playground is not the same as a forest and asphalt is not the same as a meadow or a food grove. It has also been shown that the more children can be in nature, the stronger their contact with nature - that is, the feeling that they are connected to nature, a part of nature; and the more they tend to care about nature.
How does a toddler's psychological well-being affect their ability to learn?
How is it ethical to cause discomfort? But from a pragmatic point of view - learning is possible only if the frontal lobe of the brain - the part responsible for executive processes, including working memory, attention, inhibition, as well as planning and problem solving - can function at all. This part of the brain is extremely sensitive to stress. If a child feels fear, shame, anxiety, loneliness, grief or anger, then figuratively his brain is engaged in simpler tasks, not solving novel problems, processing new information or self-regulation.
So if we somehow create a constant state of tension in a child, whether it is through punishment, threats or simply not noticing the child's needs, then we cannot expect his learning to be very effective. The laws of brain functioning are not the child's choice; this is not ideology or "modern softness".
What do you think makes a good kindergarten teacher?
A good teacher knows the laws of development, the functioning of the psyche and development. This means that he or she understands how a child develops, what this or that behavior means, what is developmentally normal and when a child might need special support.
But knowledge alone is not enough, it must also be expressed in everyday attitudes and knowledge of reasonable activities. If a teacher truly understands development, it will be easier for him or her to create a warm, caring, supportive environment.
A good teacher does not have to “fight” against children or parents all the time. Listening to people in learning environments that are built as scientifically as possible, their experience suggests that it is easier for teachers themselves to be in them, and they burn out less.
In short: a good teacher is not just a nice person, although that is also true; he or she is someone whose knowledge, attitude and working conditions together create a space that supports development.
Why do many young teachers give up teaching within the first year, even if they have a master's degree and years of study behind them?
Perhaps we haven't really taught them the reality of an educational institution and the skills and knowledge that are actually needed in the university in a sufficiently thorough way. I would first point to myself, i.e. the university - I think that teacher training must be in constant development in such a way that teachers feel not thrown into the water when they go to school, but as competent as possible to support children; and on the other hand, that this educational institution itself would like to keep and support this young teacher with a desire to teach and knowledge as best as possible, and also constantly change in accordance with new understandings of development. Apparently, there are reasons for both - both that there is too much of everything at once - and little experience, knowledge and support, and that some systems of knowledge and values clash a bit? I assume that if a teacher feels deep down that he is unable to create an environment in which a child develops under the existing conditions, then he does not want to be in this system. Perhaps some teachers give up not only because they don't want to break down themselves, but also because they feel they can't support the children as well as they think they should. Again, it's not the teacher's fault.
Estonia's PISA test results are often presented as an indicator of the success of our education system. But what do you think about it ?
It is probably not possible to draw an adequate conclusion about a complex system based on one test. In addition to PISA, the mental health of our young people is poor, there is no particular desire for some science curricula in universities; the dropout rate from certain IT disciplines is very high, and people do not particularly want to become teachers. Students decide relatively early on that science subjects are not for them. Perhaps we should be careful about building a national education narrative on one test.
PISA does not, as far as I know, measure, for example, empathy, socio-emotional skills, or the meaningfulness of learning from the students' perspective. I am also not sure how well it measures sustained attachment and interest in science. We could also have a goal that children feel good at school.
Many teachers who are already working and have received their formal education do not feel supported enough, especially when it comes to psychology and science-based teaching. How do you think their knowledge could actually be effectively improved?
We have even tried to fill this gap. We have done small experiments where small teams of schools are brought together regionally, several schools at once, with the municipality, where they study together for a year or a year and a half. We do not just give lectures, but create something that resembles a micro-degree: an understanding of the psyche, supporting development, science-based, practical changes.
It has been a meaningful, community-based, team-based, and long-term supported learning experience. Teachers not only gain knowledge, but they also start to apply it and later teach their colleagues. It is as if the university itself goes to the schools.
If you think that a teacher is satisfied with a short “methodology or toolbox or best practices training” rather than a deep understanding of the child’s psyche, nothing may improve. However, psychological knowledge without knowing how to apply it is just as ineffective.
What is your position on the use of technology, and especially artificial intelligence, in early childhood education? Should it be more included, or should it be avoided?
In my opinion, young children have no need for devices at all. Children's development does not benefit from it, and by the time they have grown up, technology has changed many times; at the same time, the functional computer skills (not the skills to use a smart device) of young people who reach university can often be very limited. So constant use of smart devices does not mean any digital literacy that should be developed separately. Just certainly not at preschool age. I would simply refer to Jaan Aru's books here, there is perhaps no reason to retell them. A child does not need a screen, but rather that he finds the pleasure of discovering the world and thinking before he becomes addicted to his first smart device.
If we talk about teachers, artificial intelligence could play a role in their work, for example, in creating learning materials or differentiated tasks. But it has to be very well thought out and a human expert must be able to evaluate this product. Robotics or a well-designed educational game can develop, for example, planning, logic, but this can also be done with many other means. A smart device or AI should not be an end in itself, they are tools. The weakest argument I have heard is: “But they grow up in a technological world anyway.” In the future, devices will be completely different. What is important is not the “use” of technology, but the ability to think, feel, communicate, and focus.
So, if you use technology, only if it adds something to the equation compared to screen-free methods. And there are very few such situations.
In your opinion, what is a good kindergarten director?
No matter how you ask, I can't say anything new - the basis is knowledge. There's no point in listing any personality traits here, a professional develops his or her qualities in the direction that the field requires. In other words, a good leader is a person who truly understands development, that is, knows the processes that are the essence of his or her work.
What is the foundation of education, school or kindergarten?
The foundation of education is not school or kindergarten, but knowledge . An understanding of the human being, development, and psyche - this is what the education system could be based on. If we don't have a science-based understanding, it doesn't matter how much we let our children outside or how long our school hours are.
Who is responsible for shaping the direction of education, researchers, teachers, officials, or parents?
everyone should be responsible for this together . Practitioners and scientists should be in a meaningful dialogue, and the executive branch, officials and politicians should listen and enforce this cooperation.
What could Estonian kindergarten be like in 20 years?
Everything is outside! And it could be more science-based than it is today, and we could have a better and more diverse understanding of what we use to evaluate the effectiveness of education. This interview with Grete Arro is an invitation to think differently about education. Not just through the system or form, but deeply through the nature of the person, development and learning. Grete reminds us that good education is not created by worksheets or discipline, but by an environment where the child's psychological development is truly understood and supported. Whether it is about creating a new school, in-service training for teachers or the role of technology. Her message is clear throughout: education must be science-based, human-centered and meaningful.
