… there is a persistent evidence-based argument that, for young children, a prescribed, outcomes driven curriculum, focused on formal skills in prepa-ration for the next stage of education, is misinformed, developmentally in-appropriate and potentially damaging. (Anning, Cullen and Fleer 2004; Gil-bert 2009; House and Loewenthal 2009; House 2011; MacNaughton and Hughes 2011; Pound and Miller 2011; Miller and Hevey 2012; Moyles 2012; Moyles, Payler and Georgeson 2014).
(Neaum, 2016, p 241)

If the question is ‘how would you ensure that the best learning is occurring in your ideal early years setting?’ then I would answer you with the following; at the centre of all learning is the unique and individual child. This child is accompanied through their personalised curriculum by an inspirational adult ‘play partner’ who acts as a role model and assists the child in co-constructing their relevant and meaningful play. The setting is free from any notion of the idea of ‘school readiness’; the child is an agent of their own learning; they are empowered to make free choices in a wholly inclusive environment. How I have come to that conclusion? Allow me to explain.

…playful contexts in which children are sensitively supported by adults are powerfully, perhaps uniquely, suited to providing these conditions in which young children thrive.
(Neaum, 2016, p.242)

Bartlett et al (2016) describe play as a disappearing pedagogy, but for the ideal setting it is play which underpins all learning. It is not merely a way to deliver the curriculum but for the child to dis-cover and practice more wider reaching and complex competences including important life skills and emotions for the future (O’Donovan and Melnyczuk, 2015; Worthington, 2015; Broström, 2017). Play enables children to build on existing schemas and practice a variety of roles and expe-riences for the future; as Kitson (2015) suggests, it is vital for children to experience challenging emotions to enable them to become a well rounded and developed adult. Barbett et al. (2016) argue that children with a lack of time to play are more likely to experience behavioural problems whilst longitudinal studies have demonstrated that children who were inhibited in their play were more like-ly to be in trouble with authorities as adults; play teaches us good citizenship (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997 cited in O’Donovan and Melnyczuk, 2015). Children who have a greater autonomy over their play are likely to push boundaries and experience meaningful emotions which they would not otherwise be able to encounter in their every day lives; they are able to experience greater con-trol and responsibility in their play whilst practicing their new found social skills in a safe environ-ment (Donovan and Melnyczuk, 2015; Broström, 2017). Play not only supports emotional devel-opment, it also supports physical development with Donovan and Melnyczuk (2015) referring to movement as a child’s first language; that movement and play literally break down primitive reflex-es and systems in the brain and body that allow humans to develop full physical maturity.

However, Broström (2017) identifies that play alone will not necessarily evoke high level learning and argues for the social interaction between the child and an adult who assumes an active role. In the ideal setting, the role of the adult becomes integral to ensuring that our play elicits the best pos-sible learning. In order to do this, the adult plays alongside the child in a skilful interaction and the play is approached from the child’s perspective (Kitson, 2015; Broström, 2017). The adult is led by the child’s interests but the adult then uses their expertise to bring in aspects of learning to develop the child further through this spontaneous play. This more nurturing approach indicates to the baby or child that it is safe to play and explore (O’Donovan and Melnyczuk, 2015). Kitson (2015) goes on to state that by joining in with the child’s play, the adult legitimises the play and gives it value, builds self esteem, as well as extending and challenging the child and their learning. Broström (2017) goes further to state the case for the adult to not act as a ‘teacher’ but to take on the role of a ‘play part-ner’ by using their knowledge of learning and development whilst remaining playful; to ‘co-construct’ play. Indeed, the adult, whilst not only extending the play, acts as an additional role model to the child and their play, that observation is a two way process whereby parents and practitioners ob-serve the child but that the child in turn observes, learns from and strives to imitate the actions of the adult (O’Donovan and Melnyczuk, 2015; Broström, 2017).

The notion of playfulness is an important one for quality learning to take place. McInnes et al (2013) discuss a number of cues children use to differentiate between ‘play’ and ‘not play’; the presence of an adult can suggest ‘not play’ but it is argued that this is the result of the quality of the involvement of the adult. It is suggested that the way we interact with children is more important than experienc-es or materials in encouraging deep level learning (Laevers, 2000, cited in Bartlett et al., 2016). McInnes et al (2013) cite an EPPE study where it was identified that of the questions practitioners and teachers in early years settings ask, only 5% were open questions; where open questions give the child an indication of choice and control. If the adult asks more open questions and their ap-proach is identified as playful, then the child will alter their perception and associate them with ‘play’ and thus result in more successful learning opportunities (Howard, Ballin and Rees, 2003; Karrby, 1989 cited in McInnes et al, 2013). In the ideal setting we would move away from the traditional def-inition of the adult-teacher and move to one where the feeling of playfulness is utilised and adults take their play cues from children. One of the principle reasons children play is to be with people they like and are interested in, so it is only natural for play that places them at the heart will take their interest over play that is looking for a previously defined outcome (Moore, 2004: 121, cited in Worthington, 2015).

In criticism however, as O’Donovan and Melnyczuk (2015) note, sometimes children are often able to learn and thrive in solidarity with an adult in the proximity; and suggests that adults interrupt as they can be afraid of losing control. I would argue that the best approach is to have adult who can step back, observe the child, note their cues, and join them at the appropriate time when an oppor-tunity to challenge and take the play further presents itself (Kitson, 2015). With this in mind, the ideal setting would follow the notion of ‘In the moment planning’ whereby it is suggested that the adult should be with the child, allow them time to reveal their interests, look for teachable moments within these interests and then contribute to the activity in a way that the child approves of by ask-ing thoughtful and provoking questions (Ephgrave, 2015). It is questionable to what extent the Early Years sector cultivates a staff body that recognises these cues and the reasons behind them. Many who come to the sector are low paid and often with low educational experiences and qualifications; do these individuals understand or have an awareness of the complexities of what is occurring un-derneath the surface when a child plays? Training from a qualification and in house point of view should focus on educating staff on these areas. In my current placement, the staff are all fully trained on the theories behind play, holding and attachment theories and so on; the quality of their provision is undeniable as each staff member is able to support each child fully in their varying needs and styles. This is what is required sector wide to improve interactions and learning opportu-nities for all.

…there needs to be a policy-level reconceptualisation of school readiness that takes account of the evidence about what actually enables children to be ready for school (Bierman et al. 2008; Whitbread and Bingham 2011).
(Neaum, 2016, p249)

It has been identified that formal assessment methods and fixed outcomes in the early years is see-ing a reduction of the use of play although this does not necessarily bring about required academic results (Barblett et al, 2016; Broström, 2017). Rogers and Brown (2015) reiterate that play does not neatly fit into learning outcomes and curricular objectives; although it is worth noting that it is not the children who created this artificial division between care and education (Lindon et al 2013). In the ideal setting, the notion of school readiness would not be a feature and it would not define our cur-riculum; our children’s success is not measured by their academic achievements alone (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009 cited in Barblett et al., 2016). We would aim to equip children with life skills; not be driven by policy to prepare them for their next level of schooling. This approach may be queried and criticised by parents or feeder schools, however, this ‘schoolifcation’ can cause high levels of stress and does not appropriately prepare children for what lies ahead (Barblett et al., 2016; Waite, 2010; Neaum, 2016, Broström, 2017). At the ideal setting we do not measure by the clock as child-hood is a subjective experience and one that individuals should be able to go through at their own pace; we take the ‘scenic route’ (Malaguzzi, 1993 cited in Neaum, 2016; O’Donovan and Melny-czuk, 2015; Waite, 2010). In the ideal setting we follow a pedagogy of competence; one that is child centred, a realisation of competencies, where learning is represented in a number of ways and there is a high level of professional autonomy for the practitioner; but the current government ad-ministration is enforcing a pedagogy of performance where the emphasis is on the specific output of the expected acquired skills (Bernstein, 2000 cited in Neaum, 2016). In a performance peda-gogy, skills are acquired for the next stage of learning through predetermined outcomes; this is not how the ideal setting will operate. Neaum (2016) states that a performance pedagogy actively dis-advantages the outcomes for children from deprived families because of their limited experiences relating to school-type activities. It is important that the ideal setting pursues a programme that is recognised as beneficial for children in the long term and is based on research about developmen-tally appropriate milestones; policy can and will change; the benefits of effective learning can re-main for a lifetime. This is imperative as children are currently being taught a narrowing curriculum of STEM subjects in schools; learning skills which may become less important, or even obsolete, over their lifetime. It is important that children are intrinsically motivated to learn independently and develop resilience so that they can continue to evolve and learn the skills important to them, rather than what is considered important by individuals many years older than them in the current admin-istration. The Early Years sector must support them in this. The ideal settings curriculum will be ac-tive, relevant and personal to the individual children in our care, we will follow their needs and inter-ests so that they are motivated to learn (Broström, 2017; Worthington, 2015; Neaum, 2016). The ideal setting aims to recognise the fluidity in a child’s learning and respond appropriately by being guided by what interests them in that time (Neaum, 2016).

In the ideal setting we would adopt the EYFS as our main tool, but use this only as a framework for guidance whilst undertaking a holistic approach to our children and their learning (Neaum, 2016; Mathieson, 2015; Waite, 2010; Broström, 2017). Part of this holistic approach would involve the adults pursuing a pedagogy of listening; hearing what the children are saying and then acting on this appropriately. The adults should co-construct play in this way with the child for a personalised cur-riculum (Broström, 2017).

In order for the EYFS curriculum to be effective, I would suggest that there needs to be learning through discussion and play with the children. Play based discussions enable adults and children to partake in the communal making of knowledge (Merewether, 2015). Edwards (2013) advocates for using technology to help learning through making meaning; by which we do not mean the skills to use ICT; but to use the characters and scenarios in the programmes they watch to help their play make meaning. This is evident in the ideal setting through the fantasy role play championed by Kit-son (2015) and other play types such as Superhero play. Technology based play is one of the tools to make meaning in our ideal settings curriculum and it is suggested that a cultural historical critique be applied to the use of technology in learning as children are adapting to the developmental de-mands of the context within which they find themselves; we cannot apply long held notions about play from previous generations to the current generation as contexts are changing; the world is moving on (Duncan and Tarulli, 2003 cited in Edwards, 2013).

Much of the impetus for the learning in our ideal curriculum will take place in the outdoors. McArdle et al. (2013) cite a number of benefits of playing outdoors and this includes a peaceful, secure yet stimulating environment which brings joy to all, the lack of visual boundaries and the ability to move away from confrontation. The potential psychological benefits of playing outdoors are also listed explaining that the outdoors subverts the usual power relations, improves social interactions and well-being, and reduces fatigue (McArdle et al., 2013; Waite, 2010). Soft fascination is an involun-tary experience which occurs when we see natural phenomena including clouds, trees and rivers and this can go far to explain why the outdoors are so psychologically beneficial; wilderness in itself can be therapeutic (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, Russell and Farnum, 2004; both cited in McArdle, 2013). The outdoors are exciting and curious for young children and it is noted that outdoor play can help to improve academic performance (Waite, 2010; Merewether, 2015). These benefits will be explained to the parents and carers of the ideal setting; that we go outside for a significant period of time every day and they must send their children equipped to do this in all weathers.

The element of risk taking is an important part of extending a child’s physical abilities and inde-pendence, and therefore should feature in the outdoor play area of the ideal nursery (McArdle, 2013). Merewether (2015) laments the ‘sterile’ environments of some outdoor play areas suggesting that they have become void of any risk taking opportunities and these are less likely to be favoured by children. Children need to be challenged physically to help the brain build vital connections (O’Donovan and Melnyczuk, 2015). O’Donovan and Melnyczuk (2015) suggest that it is the fear of consequences from parents, social workers and so on that ensures teachers inhibit learning by ask-ing children to sit and be placid; that being a noisy, energetic and physical individual is not accepta-ble. Again, the ideal nursery would communicate the needs of risk taking to parents when they first come to view the setting, but that appropriate management of risk is implemented.

When designing the play spaces of the ideal setting, one must look at the space from the perspec-tive of the child. Alongside the opportunities for risk taking, children look for places to socialise, pre-tend, observe, and move (Merewether, 2015). These co-existing themes must be forthcoming, and for any play based curriculum to work you need high quality raw materials. Broström (2017) sug-gests these can include field trips, high-quality reading books and interesting discussions about the child’s world. What must be available is a learning environment which is accessible for all children; to be enabling and inclusive.

…[as] a baseline…all children need to be treated with respect and their opin-ions and choices should be given serious consideration.
(Tayler and Price, 2016, p 45)

Tayler and Price (2016) state a very important fact that a central responsibility of every early years setting is to be open to thinking about all aspects of inclusion. Research suggests that prejudices are known to begin in children as young as three years so it is imperative that we do all we can in the ideal early years setting to promote tolerance and an inclusion (Aboud et al, 2012; Hawkins, 2014).

Mathieson (2015) states that the early years is a vulnerable time, specifically for those with SEND needs, where our sense of self and engagement with learning are formed. The ideal early years setting would look at each child individually and base their care around their specific individual needs. The ideal setting would look to include and manage SEN needs appropriately so that the child could engage with every day life at the setting as learning and social opportunities are more effective in inclusive, not segregated, settings (Clapham et al., 2016). This could be through the use of one to one support and/or appropriate specialist equipment. Disability should not be hidden away and segregated if we are to play our part in building a tolerant and understanding society.

For dual language speakers, Buysse at al (2014) recognise that, despite there being little research on the impact of 0-5 years, there is a benefit to improved language and literacy skills in attending a well regulated programme. However, when these children reach a pre-school age they are often lagging behind their peers in certain areas, such as literacy skills, and the gap widens as they get older (Reardon and Galindo, 2006; West et al., 2000 cited in Buysse, 2014). It is suggested that dual language children benefit from a rich and engaging language environment which supports oral lan-guage skills (Buysse, 2014). In the ideal setting there would be great benefit of having staff who the speak languages of the local community, who can communicate fluently with the children and sup-port the home language. Within the setting there would be a great focus on oral language skills with discussions, story telling and the sharing of books to help develop these skills for all children in the setting.

Tayler and Price (2016) identify that the nature/nurture debate regarding gender is possibly unan-swerable. However, the impact we, as practitioners, have on the reiteration of gender stereotypes is important and cannot be over looked. Children can learn, and we can help to teach the important lessons that both girls and boys have more than one option; that both can be strong, gentle or pow-erful. Alternatively they can learn that boys have more power and do not cry, whilst girls are pas-sive and weak (Tayler and Price, 2016). The ideal early years setting is an environment which sup-ports the choices of all children, one where the children are empowered to make discoveries which lie within their own emerging belief system. We do this by validating all types of play including war, weapon and superhero play. Tayler and Price (2016) challenge us to look at what children are rep-rimanded for; there is evidence to suggest that war, weapon and superhero play does not cause further violence, and that children can recognise the difference between this type of play and real fighting. It is argued however, that the message we send by stopping children who play in this way is that we do not like their play; that potentially we do not like them and this can result in low self es-teem; but it has been demonstrated that when the rules are relaxed both boys and girls benefit from the varied play that follows (Tayler and Price, 2016).

As part of the play in the early years setting, the practitioners should aim to challenge stereotypes perpetuated by both the children and any adults involved in the setting; even a small challenge can lead to a dialogue and a potentially long lasting impact on all involved (Tayler and Price, 2016). McCabe et al. (2011) found that in nearly 6000 books studied from the twentieth century, it was 1.6 times more likely for a story to have a strong central male character than female, and even higher for animal characters; that books written for girls contained strong male characters, but books writ-ten for boys did not usually have strong female characters in them. The ideal setting will select liter-ature with care, ensuring that there is an even spread of both female and male strong lead charac-ters and that all of these books are read to all of the children. This will then feed into the ideas that they take into play that both girls and boys stories can have different endings. Story time is an inte-gral part of the day and not just a transition activity in the ideal early years setting.

There is a gender fluidity in young children which should be encouraged so that they are able to explore all of the ways to be a man or a woman (Knight, 2014 cited in Tayler and Price, 2016). The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust’s gender identity development service reported that of the young people referred to their service in 2015, close to 100 were under the age of 10 years old, with Tayler and Price (2016) citing a female child of two and half years of age who began to identify themselves as male. With this in mind it is vital that we support children with the idea that gender is not binary, that it is on a spectrum; we should help to normalise the experiences that they may go through in their lifetime.

It is important that the ideal setting expose the children to a number of diverse role models for all aspects of social inclusion; that the widest experiences that a child may possibly encounter are re-flected back to them. Todd (2016) suggests that for children who may be the perceived ‘other’ in a social situation, that when they return home to their family they are comforted by the clarification that are the same. For example in an ethnic minority family; they know they are ‘normal’ because they have the same skin colour as their family. However, for a child who continues to be ‘other’ at home, for example, a transgender child, this has life long defining consequences. This could also be applied to children whose interests lie outside of perceived expected gender norms; for example, girls who want to play with the construction desk, boys who want to wear dresses in role play. At the ideal setting we would include all and normalise as many experiences as possible. For this to work in practice, education is a priority (al-Hussein, 2000; Hollinsworth, 2006; Siraj-Blatchford ,2006; Calma, 2007; Lynn, 2007 cited in Hawkins, 2014). Hawkins (2014) suggests a curriculum that sup-ports and promotes social justice, although not an easy task is imperative to a harmonious and peaceful future. Research found that through the introduction of socially just picture books, discus-sions around the themes, appropriate questioning techniques and time given to the activity, children were able to change their perceptions, challenge their assumptions, understand their relations to others and recognise oppression (Habermas, 1979; Young, 1993; Greene, 1998; cited in Hawkins, 2014). This approach would be supported in the ideal setting by trained staff accompanied by ap-propriate further training opportunities to discuss inclusion and challenges faced so that they are confident to discuss this approach with parents and carers and the communicate the importance of such. Furthermore we would welcome visitors from the wider community who represent the differ-ent cultures, roles and choices available to our children as they move through their lives. This peda-gogy of social justice is one that the ideal setting would adopt to help prepare the child to lead a re-sponsible and thoughtful life.

In conclusion, the ideal setting would see children co-creating play alongside competent, creative and challenging adults in spontaneous and child led activities. They would be outside; taking physi-cal, social and emotional risks in a safe, yet nurturing environment. Their learning would be free from external pressures of policy and ‘schoolification’. The quality resources would be selected with consideration and care to demonstrate fair representation and opportunity for all. The setting would be vibrant and inclusive in its approach to its children, staff, parents, carers and visitors through its actions, environment and challenging discussions. It would be open in it’s tolerance and acceptance depicting its core value of quality care and education for all. For me, this is the answer to ‘how would you ensure that the best learning is occurring in your ideal early years setting?’

Reference List.

Aboud, F. E., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Brown, C. S., Niens, U. and Noor, N. M. (2012) Interven-tions to reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion and respect for ethnic difference in early childhood; A systematic review, in Developmental Review. 32(4) pp. 307-336 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.05.001 Accessed April 2017

Barblett, L., Knaus, M., Barratt-Pugh, C. (2016) The pushes and pulls of pedagogy in the early years: competing knowledges and the erosion of play-based learning, in Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 41(4) pp. 36-44 http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/australian_journal_of_early_childhood/about_ajec.html Accessed April 2017

Broström, S. (2017) A dynamic learning concept in early years’ education; a possible way to pre-vent schoolification, in International Journal of Early Years Education. 25(1) pp. 3-15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196 Accessed April 2017

Buysse, V., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Páez, M., Scheffner Hammer, C and Knowles, M. (2014) Effects of early education programs and practices on the development and learning of dual language learners: A review of the literature, in Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 29(4) pp. 765-785 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.08.004 Accessed April 2017

Clapham, K., Manning, C., Williams, K., O’Brien, G. and Sutherland, M. (2016) Using a logic model to evaluate the Kids Together early education inclusion program for children with disabilities and additional needs, in Evaluation and Program Planning. 61 pp. 96-105 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.004 Accessed April 2017

Edwards, S. (2013) Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrat-ing technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum, in European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 21(2) pp. 199-212 http://10.1080/1350293X.2013.789190 Accessed April 2017

Ephgrave, A. (2015) The nursery year in action: following children’s interests through the year. London: Routledge

Hawkins, K. (2014) Teaching for social justice, social responsibility and social inclusion: a respectful pedagogy for twenty-first century early childhood education, in European Early Childhood Educa-tion Research Journal. 22(5) pp. 723-738 http://10.1080/1350293X.2014.969085 Accessed April 2017

Kitson, N. (2015) Fantasy play and the case for adult intervention, in Moyles, J. R. (ed) Excellence of Play. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp 262-272

Lindon, J., Sharp, A., Kelman, K. (2013) Play and Learning in the Early Years (2nd Edition). Lon-don: Practical Pre School Books

Mathieson, K. (2015) Inclusion in the Early Years. Maidenhead: Open University Press

McCabe, J., Fairchild, E., Grauerholz, L., Pescosolido, B. A. and Tope, D. (2011) Gender in twenti-eth-century books: Patterns of disparity in titles and central characters, in Gender and Society. 25(2) pp. 197-226 http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0891243211398358 Accessed April 2017

McArdle, K., Harrison, T. and Harrison, D. (2013) Does a nurturing approach that uses an outdoor play environment build resilience in children from a challenging background?, in Journal of Adven-ture Education and Outdoor Learning. 13(3) pp. 238-254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2013.776862 Accessed April 2017

McInnes, K., Howard, J., Crowley, K., and Miles, G. (2013) The nature of adult–child interaction in the early years classroom: Implications for children’s perceptions of play and subsequent learning behaviour, in European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 21(2) pp. 268-282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.789194 Accessed April 2017

Merewether, J. (2015) Young children’s perspectives of outdoor learning spaces: what matters?, in Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. 40(1) pp. 99-108 http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/ps/i.do?ty=as&v=2.1&u=derby&it=DIourl&s=RELEVANCE&p=EAIM&qt=TI~%22Young%20children’s%20perspectives%20of%20outdoor%20learning%20spaces%3A%20What%20matters%3F%22~~SN~1836-9391~~PU~Australasian%20Journal%20of%20Early%20Childhood&lm=&sw=w&authCount=1 Ac-cessed April 2017

Neaum, S. (2016) School readiness and pedagogies of Competence and Performance: theorising the troubled relationship between early years and early years policy, in International Journal of Early Years Education. 24(3) pp. 239-253 http://10.1080/09669760.2016.1205970 Accessed April 2017

O’Donovan, C. and Melnyczuk, V. (2015) Brain development and play, in Moyles, J. R. (ed) Excel-lence of Play. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp 25-34

Rogers, S. and Brown, C. (2015) Developing play pedagogy through critically reflective practice, in Moyles, J. R. (ed) Excellence of Play. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp 148-158

Tayler, K. and Price, D. (2016) Gender diversity and inclusion in early years education. Abingdon: Routledge

Todd, M. (2016) Straight Jacket. London: Bantam Press

Waite, S. (2010) Losing our way? The downward path for outdoor learning for children aged 2–11 years, in Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 10(2) pp. 111-126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2010.531087 Accessed April 2017

Worthington, M. (2015) Mathematics and the ecology of pretend play, in Moyles, J. R. (ed) Excel-lence of Play. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp 237-249