Children experience existential disturbances both intrinsically and externally because they are deemed not yet human. As these disturbances are hinged upon the ‘not yet-ness’ of the child, it begs the question, If children are not yet human, what does child-centeredness mean? When education spaces that claim "child-centeredness", who is the child that they are centered on? 

​

The question of child-centeredness is an important one with more schools all over the world are converting to progressive ideals claiming child-centeredness even thought the phrase to date, has no established meaning. Though the lack of meaning seems trivial at first glance, it produces a deeply disturbing phenomenon of children being isolated from their existence, the very material that makes them fully human.  These acts of isolation, albeit unintended, fail the core purpose that progressive education purports: one that is humanistic in nature, for a more humanistic society in the future. This leaves "child-centeredness" as a empty political imaginary to be filled by the motives of the time. How can this happen when progressive education so carefully outlined something more, progressive? Could it be that progressive education uses frameworks that are not founded on clear philosophical foundations or failed to sufficiently translate the complex underpinnings of philosophy? ​
 

This thesis sought to philosophically prove that children are indeed fully human because they are undetermined, reclaiming 'not yet as an ontological possibility, 'not-yet'. I show how being undetermined, or 'not-yet' is the ultimate exhibition a complete human existence. Then, I develop a framework for child-centeredness based on these philosophical findings. Lastly, I outline a model of being for teachers in progressive spaces that keep the child’s humanness intact in the classroom.