The EYFS Curriculum and the Reggio Emilia approach; highlighting the philosophies, beliefs and values in the two approaches.
Curriculum
Philosophy-Section 1
The two curriculums consisting of
the Early Years Foundation Stage-EYFS that is implemented through the UK in 0-5
years of age will be contrasted and compared throughout this essay with the
Northern Italian based Reggio Emilio approach.
The EYFS is a very structured, government-orchestrated approach which
has been in place throughout the UK since 2008, replacing the National Early
Years in place since 1997, implemented for all providers of care 0-5-year range.
The EYFS has a set of compulsory
numeracy and literacy targets children must reach at 5 years of age, and is
based on structure and stages. Loris Malaguzzi founded Reggio Emilio in 1945
and not until 1990’s it famously became a known approach; it’s expressionism
and belief is that “children are self-learners and co-coordinators of
knowledge” (Gray & MacBlain, 2015) . To ‘become’ a Reggio
Emilio based-teacher consists of no professional training, Reggio Emilia has no
written-down structure nor targets and plans around children and parents.
Louis Malaguzzi had trained as a
teacher and gone onto study psychology before he set-up the first Reggio Emilia
school; throughout his life he had conceived influence from personal
philosophy, war effort in WWII, and educational theorists such as Vygotsky to
further the inspiration of Reggio Emilia philosophy. (Miller &
Pound, 2010) .
There is ‘a hundred ways’ as Malaguzzi explains (Miller &
Pound, 2010) in which children learn, Malaguzzi
believed that the 100 languages of the child examine that children communicate
through not only linguistic and physical language but through creative play and
expression symbolism such as: writing, play, painting, music. Pamela Houk wrote
a poem ‘If…’ entailing ‘explore the world, discover my voice, and tell you what
I know in a hundred languages’ (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1988) , that highlights to
fully express ourselves and locate self-discovery, expressionism through the
100 languages is drawn up upon.
The Reggio Emilia approach indicates
the teacher as co-learning through experience, which makes for wisdom and
knowledge; “experience is based on the image of children as rich, strong and
powerful” (Miller & Pound, 2010). The child is identified as ‘rich’ and
‘strong’ understands the ‘powerful’ role of the child in Reggio Emilia. The
“teacher’s role is complex. They are learners alongside the child while
provoking and stimulating the child’s learning” (Gray &
MacBlain, 2015) ,
the practitioners take account the parent and guardian opinions, whereas the
EYFS is completely set-in-stone by government authority. The “Reggio
pre-schools use visual and graphic representations rather than written accounts
to document their work…is very different from the more familiar US model” (Hall, et al., 2014) . The
Italian Reggio Emilia framework is very different in comparison the
Western and UK approaches are familiar or identify with; there is no written
structure, professionals have different understanding of principles and
hierarchy and Reggio Emilia is adapted to settings rather than set as national
curriculum.
The Early Years Foundation Stage
(EYFS), reviewed 2011 and
revised in 2012 by the government, supports
an “integrated approach to early learning and care. It gives practitioners a
set of common principles and commitments to deliver quality early education and
childcare experiences to all children.” (Foundation Years, 2014) .
The EYFS sets that the practitioner’s
use ‘common principles’ to uphold a certain standard of learning and
development for the child, the practitioner leading the child, contrasting to
the view of the child as ‘co-learners’ in Regio Emilia.
The view of the child is that every
child is ‘The Unique Child’; every child has their own record book
and individual observation tracking lists. The “view of every child as unique
and different from every other child…implies that in the EYFS every child has
the capacity to learn and that their experiences should be personalised” (Langston,
2013) .
The ‘uniqueness’ of the child should be supported through the ‘Unique Child’,
’Positive Relationships’, ‘Enabling Environments’, and ‘Learning and
Development’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2007) . This contrasts
Reggio Emilio who identifies the uniqueness through the ‘100 Languages of the Child’
and their individual expressionism rather than given stages and checks as seen
in the EYFS.
The EYFS framework draws on the
works of Piaget and Vygotsky, who’s structured stages and phases of development
are highly recognised as is “Piaget in particular created a framework for
understanding how children think mathematically and scientifically” (Hughes, 2012) . Thus, the structured and organized framework
of stages of both Vygotsky and Piaget form the basis of the structure of the
EYFS. (Parker-Rees, 2006) The work of
educational theorists which is well-researched and credited that can be backed
up and applied to further the importance in terms of critical and logical thinking
through the Next Steps check as opposed to Reggio Emilio who celebrate no
mandatory checks at age 2 and 5 but rather a growth in creative play and
self-discovery. Vygotsky’s use of schemas and scaffolding are very present in
the Next Steps check in the EYFS; as is observation. “Observation is an
integral part of professional interactions with children, and is identified in
the EYFS as a key to effective practice.” (Department for Children Schools
and Families,, 2009) .
Adult
Role-Section 2
The “practitioner will have been a
different ‘self’ or combination of different ‘selves’ depending on what the
activity or responsibility entailed’ (Rogers & Rose, 2012) understands that the
practitioner’s many job roles acts as a care-giver, friend, observer, assessor,
and many more. To work around as a different ‘self’ should be majorly credited
as the power of the practitioner and the dedication to the job is sufficed
through the difficult and dedicated roles they ‘play’.
The ways in which the EYFS Key
practitioner will work with the parents include: home visits, formal meetings,
observation on the child’s 2 year and Next Steps stages and the child’s record
book. Working with parents in the EYFS
understands that the “account taken of information provided by parents”, (The Early
Years Foundation Stage, 2008) on their child’s
development’ is undertaken, however the “Assessments should be based on
practitioners’ observations of what children doing in their day-to-day
activities... gathered from a wide range of learning and teaching contexts” (The Early
Years Foundation Stage, 2008) . Therefore, in terms
of working with parents it is crucial to learn from them to understand the
child, their needs, concerns of parents; but the assessment is completely based
on the understanding of the teacher-unlike seen in Reggio Emilia who integrate
the opinion of parents (the first teacher, followed by the practitioner as the
second). It is crucial to deter parent’s bias and gather coherent observation
and examination correctly and without data corruption from the practitioner, (Iwaniec,
2004) .
Supporting the children’s learning
through plan and assessment is the basis of the EYFS, it is government required
that the practitioner abide through documentation, lesson plan and assessment
to follow the structure of the EYFS. The assessments form the basis of the
lesson plan and the activity plan for the subjected children, it is crucial to
identify how important assessments are to cater for the individual child to
suit the needs that the child needs and should focus on. (Brodie, 2013)
The Reggio Emilia sees the adult as a
‘co-learner’ and although parents (the first teacher), will integrate their
examinations and reflections on to guide and further child’s day by day
learning; the adult is identified as a student who is learning, (Miller & Pound, 2010) . The “teacher’s role is one of great
protaganism and is inherently respected” (Rinaldi, 2006) , teachers are
reflecting and pondering their experiences working within the setting and becoming
familiar with the minds of young children; the practitioner as the ‘second
teacher’ and ‘co-learner’ reflects consistently on the day-to-day running’s and
their personal presence within the setting. A-like the Early Years
Practitioner, the Reggio Emilia practitioners mainly consist of two per class,
they have non-contact observations of children and has the duty to document and
capture the work and the progress that the children make and relay this
information back to parents. (EDWARDS & Gandini, 2015) .
In terms of working with parents the socio-cultural
element will differentiate itself for every situation; working with the parent brings
the difference in opinions and discussions and the practitioners must take this
into account; if there are contrasting ideas from parents it can be bias and complicated
to implement their opinions into the setting, especially if there is a broad
range of requirements. (Rinaldi, 2006) . A difficult
subjection of the approach contrasts that of the EYFS, a benefit of having a
scheme that has a rigid framework means there is structure and a basis so all
feel familiar and cannot bring difficulty, especially parent bias to the
educational practise.
The Practitioner’s express their work
through photo and work hanging on a regular basis around the setting to connect
the children to their work and parents. Like the EYFS, the hanging and
engagement of children’s work is also present within the EYFS Setting, for
familiar reasons. Although written materials are scarce in this approach,
generic forms that entails if the child slept, ate and how many changes they
would have had in a day, are present which is clear basis in the EYFS. (Rinaldi,
2006)
Children are given the opportunities and chance to design their own creative
activities as their experience allows them to do so, you do not see this
implemented in the EYFS as it is solely government orchestrated.
Comparing
Environments-Section 3
Within the Reggio Emilia environment; the
power of ‘the third teacher’ is omnipresent; through the inside and outside
settings.
Reggio Emilia is referred to as “creating
flexible environments that are responsive to the need for children and teachers
to construct knowledge together (Carter, 2007) ” this enforces the
ability and the power of the children to create their personal setting and
become comfortable and flexible in their play, and adapting their indoor
environment, unlike the EYFS. Additionally, the role of the piazza (town centre
in Italian) is one of the largest, open indoor spaces within Reggio Emilio that
is centre to the layout to allow for very public and freeing area of connection
for the children, who are viewed as “social beings” (Gandini,
1993) ,
“it fosters encounters, stories, …and the children’s assumption of public identity
“ (Malaguzzi & Ceppi, 1998) (the translation of
it being town centre as it is a meeting and connecting place). The “refusal of
spaces…easily useable for children’s activities which have been used
traditionally as a method of order and control” (Malaguzzi & Ceppi, 1998) can be identified
within EYFS settings as the only one big conjoining room would be that of the
‘dining/assembly room’ which is monitored, timed and adult-led.
The use of open spaces identifies the
importance of the outside environment within the inside setting, the transparency
of the building highlights the “strong relationship between the inside and the
outside of the school building…’senses’ what is happening outside” (Malaguzzi
& Ceppi, 1998) .
The design of the inside environment is very consistent in that it is very
natural approach; an open, clear space that children and adults are welcomed is
very different to the layout and the attitudes found within the EYFS who
follows guide-lines such as ‘display has to be at children height and
eye-sight’ and can be critiqued as ‘over-stimulating’ and having higher
authority dictate the layout of their own classroom. A study on Western indoor
classrooms identifies how intelligence correlates to the presentation of our
classes; “Children…distracted by the visual environment, spent more time off
task, and demonstrated smaller learning gains when the walls were highly
decorated.” (Fisher, Godwin, & Seltman,
2014) .
The outdoor environment is explored
through the ‘100 languages’ the teachers see it “crucial that the children find
ways to remember…in paint, clay, to marvel at what they discover” (Cadwell,
1997) ,
by showing their personal enthusiasm, experience with the children to further
the child’s exploration of nature through their ‘100 languages’.
The identification that “Children
learn best when they are healthy, safe, and secure when their individual needs
are met and when they have positive relationships with the adults caring for
them.” (EYFS Statutory Framework, 2009) . Is implemented
throughout the EYFS, this framework cause be considered quite universal, and applied
within Reggio Emilia, as the parent wants the best for the child, as does
practitioner. The Enabling environment in the indoors is consisting of
The outdoor environment in the EYFS
signifies that child’s play is centre and their power over environment is
enabled (Hodgman, 2012) . However, within the
EYFS outdoor play is structured on a limited timetable; the lack of offer of
simultaneously indoor and outdoor environments is unfortunate as it limits the
child’s control as to when the child wants to switch environments and implies
the less importance the outside environment may be to the EYFS. (Bilton, 2010) . The Foundation
Years highlights further the issue of the outdoor environment not necessarily
of indorsed importance, “Finding ways to promote the importance and value of
the outdoor environment to all those involved…senior management team, other
professionals, staff and parents.” (Foundation Years Team, 2012) .
The ‘prime
areas’ of communication and language, physical development and personal, social
and emotional development in the
Inside environment should include “range
of activities such as soft play, paint mixing, growing plants, mark-making,
reading stories, or exploring the properties of materials such as clay, sand or
water.” (Foundation Years, 2014) The majority of the
child’s presence is based inside the setting; a concern within the EYFS is the
lack of space, the abundance of material and meeting classroom requirements to
fit the EYFS. As the setting has to correlate to standards, especially to that
of the hierarchy of teachers i.e. head teachers, there is no ‘space’ for ‘freedom’
unlike that of Reggio Emilia which guides the children to nurture the setting
that changes at its own pace.
The familiar activities that are enabled in
EYFS are mirrored in Reggio Emilia, thus this understands the link of creative
accessibility as importance within the Early Years. An “environment that
promotes positive feelings and social skills” (Palaiologou, 2016) furthers the three
prime areas of learning; thus, it is important that the indoor environment is
professional, yet comforting to stimulate child’s learning and development to
make the child feel comfortable.
Personal Pedagogy-Section 4
My own personal stance on how I believe
to further support the child’s learning can be found within this last section
of this essay. I focus on what important values within the early years setting
and the role of the educator convey personally.
My pedagogy and belief of the
importance of outdoor play as a key value in Early Years is very personal; I
have worked and volunteered in jobs and training that specialise in physical
development, self-confidence, and engaging all to be inclusive. Working as a Sports
Coach, Adventurous Pursuit Instructor and Key Worker with a range of children
of 4 up until 16 furthers my passion for the enthusiasm for the outdoors. The “pioneers
whose ideas…formed early educational practises consensus that… outdoor play experiences
are essential for children’s growth and learning” (Wellhousen,
2002)
examine that the importance of outdoor play is crucial in developing the prime
areas of learning. Unfortunately, working in practises within the EYFS I have
had experiences where practitioners and routine discourage the outside play and
rarely simultaneously enable the two environments at once. Sometimes this is
down to understandable ratio requirements (DofE, 2011) , conditions of weather;
however, arguments such as: personal discomfort, discomfort in probable hazards
and personal complaints should not hinder outdoor play. It is important as
practitioner, our ‘role’ is to enable child learning and development to a high
ability; this cannot be enabled through indoor environment alone, especially
concerning some children may not have the luxury at home to even have an
outdoor enabling environment, thus the setting is the only enabling environment
they have. (Carrington, 2016)
I chose to focus on the Reggio Emilia
approach because I am interested in the role of the practitioner in this
certain approach; throughout my teaching and coaching I have worked as
different ‘selves’, through observation, a care-giver, a discipliner, an
engager and leader. The Reggio Emilia approach was an approach that I did not
come into knowledge of until I became familiar at university with as-well as numerous
other types of approaches. The role of the practitioner as the ‘co-learner’ is
a very interesting and admiring concept to me as I believe it is quite humbling
to understand that as adults, there is still lessons to learn, and to learn
from the child is a fascinating concept (Miller & Pound, 2010) . I personally see
the role of the educator as a ‘co-learner’, I do believe that some activities-depending
on age and subject matter require the lead of the practitioner, great practise
in my opinion requires a balance of adult and child-led activities. I do understand
that adult-led comes first, and then child-led within the EYFS, and a more
child-led with some adult-led (when required) is evident in Reggio Emilia. The
approach of the child having the ‘power’ to mould how they wish to learn is a
key theme of practise that I see the role of the educator in terms of the Early
Years; research digests that “starting
school at such a young age may be stressful for children” (Sharp &
Riggall, 2008)
and in contrast to the Scandinavian countries, who don’t start school until 7
and deem language as the first importance rather than that of numeracy and
literacy; the children are more prepared and stress-free. Reports further incline
that children learn best through play; and that a later start to academic
education benefits the child (Whitebread, 2012) . I agree that
children learn best through play in Early Years when concerns of numeracy and literature
are not predominately targeted.
Word Count: 2,920
