“They had been chasing him round the garden and teasing him, and he had run away and hidden. And in the morning, he was dead. He was very old and had had a long life. The children had looked after him and loved him. But now he was dead. They put him in a box and made a funeral. And they all cried.”
— Susan Isaacs, diary, Malting House School
When I was at university, this story shook me to the core. The incident reminded me of the Lord of the Flies book scenario, where children run wild without any educator’s guidance. Is it what objective observation is like?
We were studying pedagogy and documentation, surrounded by readings on Piaget and Vygotsky, when my lecturer read this passage aloud. It was from Susan Isaacs’ diary, documenting a moment from the Malting House School. The children had chased and teased their beloved rabbit, not out of cruelty, but play. The next morning, they found him dead. He had been old.
The children made a box, held a funeral, and wept.
Isaacs let them feel it all. She didn’t redirect or fix — she witnessed.
It was the first time I understood the way children may think and how they approach death as a concept to process.
I also reconsidered the role of the teacher as a researcher, as an observer and inquirer who witnesses play, documents children’s learning and their thoughts as they occur.
Susan Sutherland Isaacs (née Fairhurst) was born in 1885 in Lancashire to working-class parents — a saddler-turned-journalist father and a musically gifted mother. When her mother died at age six, Susan’s life changed sharply. Her father’s remarriage created family tensions, and when she later rejected religion and declared herself a socialist and atheist.
As Jane Murray (2021) explains, Isaacs’ strength was her ability to draw from three fields, such as pedagogy, philosophy, and psychology (PPP), to understand how children build knowledge through play, inquiry, and social experience.

The Malting House School as a living lab
Isaacs’ breakthrough came when she was appointed the head of Malting House School (1924–1927), an experimental learning community in Cambridge. Children could explore, problem-solve, and even philosophise freely, which seemed like a RADICAL idea for the time. Teachers were not instructors but co-thinkers and observers. Does it sound familiar? No wonder… Reggio Emilia and Anji play approaches are based on similar ideas.
“Play is indeed the child’s work, and the means whereby he grows and develops.”
— Isaacs, 1929, p. 9
Here, Isaacs saw children as natural researchers. Whether observing how wood floats or debating fairness during a game, children were constantly forming hypotheses, testing ideas, and refining their understanding of the world (Isaacs, 1930; Murray, 2021).

She later wrote:
“The child’s cognitive act is similar… to his later acts of understanding, of reasoning, or of practical organisation, as a historian, a scientist or a man of affairs.”
(Isaacs, 1930, p. 65)
This wasn’t romantic idealism. It was based on systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis, the same principles Isaacs believed every educator should apply (Murray, 2021).
Children and Phantasy
Susan Isaacs’s The Nature and Function of Phantasy book is one of the most interesting and influencial texts on children’s thinking. Isaacs made major contributions to the field of psychoanalysis, especially through her seminal 1943 paper, “The Nature and Function of Phantasy.” In this book, she argued that unconscious phantasy is present from the start of life, shaping all instincts, relationships, and perceptions. Take , for example, my niece, who merges real and imaginative all the time (she is 8).
This theory deepened our understanding of how children process the world, not just intellectually, but through imagination, inner conflict, and emotional meaning-making.
Isaacs also understood that thought isn’t just cognitive, it’s emotional. In her work with psychoanalysis, she expanded on Melanie Klein’s theory of unconscious phantasy, stating:
“There is no impulse, no instinctual urge or response which is not experienced as unconscious phantasy.”
(Isaacs, 1948, as cited in Bodycote, 2020, p. 115)
This meant play, dreams, fears, and even tantrums were not random. They were meaning-making processes. Children trying to make sense of their world.
🌼 Why Susan Isaacs Still Matters
In a time of outcomes and over-scheduling, Isaacs invites us to pause, to watch, listen, and reflect.
She reminds us that:
- Children’s questions are not distractions. They are part of the curriculum, your program, your planning.
- Educators are not performers. They are co-investigators.
- Play is not a break from learning. It is the learning.
✏️ Reflection
How might your practice change if you treated every child as a natural researcher, even during conflict, tears, or silence?
References
Murray, J. (2021). How do children build knowledge in early childhood education? Susan Isaacs, Young Children Are Researchers and what happens next. Early Child Development and Care, 191(7–8), 1230–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1854242
Bodycote, L. (2020). Review of the book Wise Words: How Susan Isaacs changed parenting, by C. Vollans. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 46(1), 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0075417X.2020.1739736