The EYFS Curriculum and the Reggio Emilia approach; highlighting the philosophies, beliefs and values in the two approaches.

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