Maureen Lee’s article in The EYE (March 2019) about the benefits of having an Early Years Teacher (EYT) trainee, inspired me to contribute and offer further examples of how and why we should be advocating for EYTs in our settings and in schools.

A Case Study: Attenborough Church Pre-School

Attenborough Church Pre-School is a charity-run pack away setting which employs two part time graduates.  Both graduates came on to the programme in September 2018. The setting has been instrumental in supporting and encouraging the two trainees to apply for the course and with their on-going training.  There has been a considerable amount of extra work as a result of this, in terms of mentoring, facilitating university days, a six week placement each in an alternative setting, plus the 10 days out in a KS1 setting, not to mention the administrative tasks, however, the benefits have far outweighed this.

Both trainees have been so enthusiastic that their energy has been contagious and they have managed to bring all other members of staff along with them. The manager reports that all staff are now talking and acting differently as a result of all members of staff using the Early Years Teachers’ Standards as their new professional benchmark, working together to endorse their existing professional qualities and to support each other’s further development. Their love of children’s learning and development has been reinvigorated and along with it, their own love of learning. The team are all on a learning journey together which has been prompted by the experiences of the two EYT trainees. The conversations that staff are having have changed and children’s learning and play is more purposeful than ever before.

Open and interested management

The success in part is because the management and all staff have been open to change and open to suggestions and have not felt threatened. The reasons for this are two-fold: experienced and reflective management and the approaches of the trainees who have worked very collegially.  As the trainees were already employed at the setting they had good relationships with staff, however, it is still difficult to implement changes in a sustained way.  Here are some of the changes they have made in the four months they have been on the programme:

Developing the reading area; adopting a ‘scribe my story’ and displaying these; changes to phonics planning; increasing daily maths; adopting more creative areas in all rooms; changes to the reporting to parents; focussing on next steps and ensuring that all children are moving forward; targeted small group planning to support the achievement of identified goals; greater sharing of ideas; increasing reflective practice to help maintain a culture that is open to continuous improvement.

All staff benefit

What was particularly heartening when I have been out to the setting on visits is the evidence that all staff are benefitting from the course: knowledge is being cascaded, and as we know, if staff benefit, so too will the children.  One trainee commented to her mentor (the manager) whilst we were having a professional discussion, ‘oh it’s in that book I lent you’.  Staff training has been initiated by the trainees during the half-termly staff training meetings as well on a daily basis.

Morale at the setting is very high and the Chairperson spoke of a ‘buzz’. Parents have welcomed the increase in information flow and have been supportive of the trainees, understanding the need for them to undertake placements elsewhere and valuing the insights that they bring back.

“I have seen it as a real inspiration to our other team practitioners. The knowledge that the trainees have brought into the setting has helped show the importance of these early years and show that a good foundation for all children is paramount. All of our team’s confidence has grown along with our trainees who have been brilliant at filtering down their learning to others and incorporating their ideas into sessions. I also took on the role of mentoring (for the first time) which I have found very rewarding. It gave time for us to reflect on our practice and to think about what was working, what could be improved etc. It has helped us form good, strong relationships with good communication skills. I felt it was beneficial to the whole setting.”  Debby Stevens Pre-School Manager:

More trainees, please!

The setting will have two qualified EYTs next year, and will be looking to support further trainees with placement opportunities.  The overall experience of having EYT trainees as part of the team has been invaluable in helping all of the team leap forward as reflective practitioners who have high aspirations for themselves, for the Pre-School and most importantly, for our children.

I have always had a passion for Early Years, having over 15 years’ experience in nurseries, community work, playgroups and my current role within a reception class.

I have always loved study and developing and updating my skills and I came across the PGCE Early Years as I browsed the internet for Early Years courses. I did not know this route existed! I applied thinking ‘why not?’ and well, I’m so glad I made the decision. I really enjoy ‘hands on’ experience so the thought of this course being work-based was a huge pull.  The idea of collecting evidence really appealed to me too.

I found that the tutors were amazing – really supportive. Nothing was never any trouble and they would reply to any queries promptly. The lectures I attended for the modules were informative, useful and relevant.  Even after being there all day and you just wanted to get home, they were inspiring so never a waste of time.  I found the modules interesting and I am glad I carried on studying them.  It was hard going at times finding time to research theorists for the assignments whilst gathering evidence alongside a full-time job but if you manage your time well it is completely achievable. I am not sure whether to continue with my Master’s yet as I am working full time in a teaching role, but I wouldn’t rule it out in the future.

Time on the course flew by and before I knew it my first observation was looming. I was very nervous about this but as soon as my UAM arrived I was put at ease and it went smoothly – well, as smoothly as baking with a group of 4- and 5-year olds can go!! I learnt quickly not to overthink the observations – don’t make the session too complicated!

My second placement was in a nursery setting with 2-year olds. If I’m honest, this was a challenging experience.  Mainly because it was not consistent.  Due to work commitments I had to spread my time over several months. This made building relationships hard and meant that the staff I was working with couldn’t remember what I would be doing for my next session. I also came across many barriers to leading the staff team and getting them on board with any changes I wanted to make – this was frustrating but I ultimately grew as a professional from the experience!!

Since gaining my EYTS I have successfully completed my QTS assessment only route through Derby University. The tutors were very helpful in pointing me in the right direction and I completed this in less than 12 weeks due to confidence in gathering evidence for the teacher standards following the EYTS course.  I would never have considered this before, so I am grateful to the EYTS programme for giving me the confidence to go for it. I really haven’t looked back at all since I first started the EYTS.

In doing my EYTS I feel it has opened so many doors for me. I am now actively involved in Maths Hub sessions which I didn’t know about before and I now lead maths within my workplace as a result.  I am also attending Early Years network meetings and conferences which enable me to share practice with other Early Years professionals.

Ben Kingston-Hughes is the director of Inspired Children Ltd delivering a wide range of practical training for Nurseries, Out of School settings and Schools. He has been a finalist for the National Playwork Awards Best Trainer Award and the Nursery World Trainer of the Year and his training was recently mentioned by Ofsted as an example of outstanding staff development. Inspired Children was recently commissioned by Channel 4 to appear in a documentary working with vulnerable children showing in December 2017.

What’s the point of Play?

Nothing seems so undervalued in our society as children playing. At best it can be seen as a frivolous waste of time and at worst negative or dangerous behaviour. For years I have been at odds with people who have been critical of the emphasis I place on Play in the various settings I have worked at.

We have all had experience of parents who don’t seem to understand the value of play and sometimes actively seek to undermine it

 “I don’t want my child getting dirty!”, “I don’t want my child getting wet,” “I don’t want my child going outdoors – it’s cold,” “I want my child to be learning NOT playing!”, “my child has a bruised knee – how could you be so irresponsible! ”,“I don’t want my child having fun!”

It would be easy to blame those parents (yes we all secretly do!) but the bottom line is that no-one teaches parents the value of play. Play does look frivolous, it can look like negative behaviour and can easily be misinterpreted as having no value by adults who have forgotten how it feels to play. We cannot blame parents for their attitudes as we come from a whole society that does not value play. All we can do is try our best to educate parents and other adults to help the children in our care.

I find the most useful approach when I deliver play training for parents is to break down the benefits of play into 3 essential aspects so we can give parents a triple whammy of good stuff and then really hammer it home (with actual hammers if necessary) with some of the most appalling research on the negative effects of play deprivation. These three elements seem to hit the spot with almost every parent that attends despite a variety of differing cultures and social backgrounds. In this blog I am looking at each of the three elements over a series of posts beginning with……..

Part 1 – Benefit 1) Play helps Children survive as Adults.

The neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp posed an interesting question. “If play is frivolous and serves no purpose, why has that behaviour not died out over thousands of years of evolution? Presumably a playing child would be more inattentive to predators? Why then do all mammals “play” despite this behaviour being potentially life threatening?”

The answer Jaak came up with is fascinating. The only reason Play has survived in the primitive mammalian brain is that it must somehow be so vital to the eventual survival of that mammal that it has remained as an ingrained behaviour across countless generations despite its obvious draw-backs.

Every time a child jumps, or runs or skips they minutely increase the bone density in their limbs meaning they will have stronger bones in adult life. For primitive humans (and all mammals), stronger bones equated to an increased chance of survival in adult life. Every time a child has a tickle fight, rolls around the floor or climbs stuff they build their physical strength, their balance and their dexterity, all vital survival traits for a prehistoric world. Every aspect of a child’s physical survival potential is trained for and developed through play, from their cardiovascular strength and three dimensional spatial awareness to their adrenal response systems and immune system. But we don’t live in a prehistoric world so surely these physical survival traits have less value? True, we are no longer evading rampaging cave bears (sounds like a Saturday night in town?) but those same behaviours that prepared children to become strong healthy adults 100,000 years ago will help them become strong, healthy adults today and help prevent conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and heart disease. The frightening fact is that we believe the current generation of children will be the first generation in recent history for whom life expectancy will decrease rather than increase as a direct result of the decline in these play behaviours.

For play deprived children the lack of these fundamental, instinctive play behaviours can cause health issues right into adulthood and crucially lower their life expectancy. The average screen time in this country is now over 6 hrs per day for children. These children do not always have opportunities for simple play activities at home or school meaning that nursery or out of school provision could potentially be the only environment in a child’s whole life where they are supported to simply play. There is compelling evidence to suggest that these moments of play do more for a child’s development and well-being than anything else they ever do.

As a final bit of evidence – Jaak Panksepp’s experiments with rats have demonstrated that rats who engage in lots of play thrive and survive whereas rats who have been prevented from playing simply don’t!

In part two of this blog we discuss Benefit 2 – Play is the key criteria for healthy brain growth! (including the role of play in building neurological structures for higher academic learning such as reading writing and maths.)

For more information on Inspired Children or to access our huge range of training for Out of School settings please go to www.inspiredchildren.org.uk

Part 2 – Benefit 2) Play is the Key Criteria for Healthy Brain Growth.

What do we all want for our children in primary school? We want reading, writing and maths right? (sigh!)

What most people don’t know is that the neurological structures a child needs for those tasks are not “hard-wired” into the brain. By that I mean they are not present at birth. The child has to build the structures in their brain to accomplish these higher academic tasks (including communication and language).

The irony is that sitting at a desk listening to an adult speak is not the way a child develops these essential structures and is in fact a very ineffective method of learning altogether. The times when a child is moving freely, testing their limits and using their imagination are the times when this fundamental brain growth takes place at its best. You can all imagine the parent who shouts, “Daniel! Stop being a pirate and come and do your homework.”, never once realising that being a pirate is the very thing that will give Daniel the fundamental structure in his brain to do the homework in the first place!

Neuroscientists seem to be moving towards an activity dependent model of brain growth which simply means that what grows our brains in childhood are the activities we do. And the activity that builds the brain more than any other? Play! We can now see simple, freely chosen play as underpinning every academic discipline a child needs throughout their life.

When Daniel is being a pirate he is using his imagination. A study in 2015 by the University of Dartmouth showed that when using the imagination the brain lights up like a Christmas tree creating a neural network across the entire upper brain. This research makes a compelling argument that imaginative play is one of the most powerful brain development activities a child can ever experience. What else do we need a neural network for? Only every academic task a child needs in school from problem solving to mathematical thinking. In a very real sense being a pirate is much more important than the homework could ever be. (Try telling that to your child’s teacher!)

What many adults also do not see is the inter-relationship between the types of play and a whole array of learning and development. For instance in almost every case of physical delay (or neuro-motor immaturity) in a child there is a corresponding delay in their communication and language. The physical movements a child undertakes do not just develop the parts of the brain associated with movement but parts of the brain associated with almost every aspect of their development. And when do children make these essential spontaneous movements? When they are playing of course. Not when an adult lines them up and tries to find out who is fastest but when children joyfully engage in a whole range of movements purely for their own enjoyment.

Bob Hughes describes Locomotor Play (one of 16 essential play types) as…

“Movement in any or every direction for its own sake….”

There are many reasons for the link between movement and communication not least because children learn fine and gross motor skills through play and gross motor skills help children develop fine motor skills. The finest and most complex motor skill a child ever uses is the intricate movements of the tongue to form words.

We also know that symbolic play (another of Bob Hughes play types) underpins communication and language and helps activate many of the same areas of the brain. Language is itself symbolic and so every time a child pretends a stick is a wand or creates an internal voice for their action figures they are building essential structures for communication.

If you can convince parents that far from being frivolous, the playful experiences of children underpin high level thinking then hopefully they will understand that when you send them home covered in mud, paint, glitter and grass stains you are actually helping them to read, write and problem solve. (Good luck with that though!)

In my last blog we looked at the extensive learning and play opportunities that natural spaces offer, helping children connect with their environment and helping to develop a healthy physical and mental well-being. I would encourage all early years’ practitioners to consider any opportunity you can to allow your children to play in natural spaces. However, it is so important to build your confidence in doing this. The Forest School movement has seen a huge rise in risk-taking outdoor activities however the thought of 2 yr olds around a fire has terrified some practitioners. Don’t panic; your children can experience meaningful learning and play in a natural space without this. This takes training and time, and many practitioners can’t offer this due to lack of suitable sites and staffing levels.

The first step – getting all onboard

Explain your intent to staff and parents including why it is important for a child’s development and well-being. Ask parents to provide waterproof clothing or invest in some yourselves. Explain some of the activities you plan to do and that children will be encouraged to take balanced, measured risks which are important to their development.

In mentioning risks remember that being around any new outdoor hazard for our very youngest is just the same as teaching them to climb steps or use scissors. So you and their parents are managing their play around many hazards every single day – just indoor ones!

More importantly, children need to experience risk to be safe in any environment. We can no longer rely on busy parents to teach their children about all the hazards they may encounter. If we do not expose children to various risks in a controlled and measured way where will they learn the skills to recognise hazards for themselves?

In support of this there is a national drive to move away from pure risk assessments and write risk-benefit assessments instead – highlighting firstly what the benefits of doing an activity then considering any control measures needed. If the benefits outweigh the risks then we owe it to our children to get them out there. Tim Gill gives a great understanding of Risk-Benefit in ‘Balancing Risks and Benefits in Managing Outdoor Learning and Play’.

In addition, every day we set our children up to fail due to our differing ideas of what risk a hazard may cause. For example, I encourage tree climbing however you might be horrified at the thought and therefore tell them to get down – what confusion for the child. Even if we feel uncomfortable with what is going on, that should not necessarily determine our next move as it may stop a child reaching their full potential. You need to agree with your adults and children the expectation of behaviour, boundaries and risk-taking within any area you use. Then start to expand your provision –

Offer naturalised/loose parts play at your setting

Begin by altering the resources in your outdoor provision:

• offer large loose parts play for construction and open-ended role-play;
• large areas of sand/soil and items for a mud kitchen for digging and imaginative play;
• natural materials for picture making;
• enhance water features for greater problem solving.

Ensure anything you offer gives open-ended play opportunities – I am so disappointed by the number of water ‘walls’ I see with fixed positions. By fitting hooks to the back of the channels/gutters the children can alter the positions thus working collaboratively to problem solve and experience various scientific phenomenon like speed and gravity. A simple alteration offers much greater learning opportunities. Check out Learning through Landscapes for more information on loose parts play.

Whilst observing your children experimenting and collaborating whilst using these larger and messier resources try to ban the words ‘no’ and ‘stop’ from your vocabulary, redirecting unwanted behaviour and allowing a more child-centred approach to their learning.

Next step – Getting off-site

When you first visit a new site give red ribbons/wool to staff and children to place on hazards they consider a risk to them (or get children to show their teddy). Then consider these three points –

• Is it something that you point out to avoid but leave in the area ensuring they learn for the future e.g. harmful plants?
• Is it something that needs a control measure to keep them safe e.g deciding where they can go?
• Is it something that could cause significant harm and needs to be removed or you need to work elsewhere?

Next walk/run around the boundary of the area you will be working in with your children then play a game to get them to run to the boundary and back but if you shout freeze they need to stop and look at you. Play other games in the area building your confidence that they know where to stay.

Then when you are confident allow them to explore and play by themselves, occasionally starting an activity they might like to join in with e.g. mark making in the mud, collecting leaves, making a natural picture, but remember to let them lead and choose to do their own thing if they prefer. I am sure once you see the benefit to your children’s development you will be hooked. And just remember that most accidents in the UK happen in the home not in a natural space!

About the Author

Kim Hudson is a qualified teacher and has worked in mainstream or environmental education for over 19 years. Trading for the last 10 years as Inspiring Outdoors she seeks any opportunity to encourage schools, early years settings and families to create lasting impressions for children of all ages. This includes a consultancy on embedding learning beyond the classroom, school grounds development, teacher training for Royal Horticultural Society and Learning through Landscapes, and a LOtC Mark and Quality Badge assessor for Council for Learning Outside the Classroom. She also co-founded Lincolnshire Forest School and Woodland Network, runs a woodland holiday playscheme and is now developing the Inspiring Outdoors Explorer Packs. The first of which is the Woodland Explorer pack available at www.inspiringoutdoors.co.uk.

The importance of child-led play in a natural space

By Kim Hudson

Compare a stick and a car and with a good imagination you will soon realise the amazing number of play and learning opportunities a stick can offer!

In an early year’s setting play and imagination can be limited by the resources provided. This can lead to a misconception of a child’s interest because the things they are truly interested in are not available to them. Place them in an outdoor natural environment and suddenly the possibilities are endless – a fallen tree becomes a train, a table for a giant’s banquet; a hole in a tree becomes a way to spot pirates stealing treasure or a target to throw stones through; cones and conkers soon come alive with googly eyes or a marker pen and join the adventures of their stickperson.

By allowing open-ended play in a natural space we support the development of not only the child’s imagination and creativity but also their physical and mental well-being. With childhood obesity on the rise, parents having greater demands on their time and an increasing technological lifestyle, early years settings play an essential role in ensuring that children connect with their environment and develop a healthy well-being. Exploring a natural environment, balancing on logs, dancing with rhythm sticks helps to combat obesity without children realising they are exercising, and gives real-world learning opportunities to problem solve, work collaboratively and understand the world around them. Sitting quietly listening to sounds or hunting for wildlife connects them to nature and their environment, and promotes positive mental well-being.

For 20 years I have worked outdoors with children of all ages, but it is the early informative years that fascinate me the most. Many of my friends have under 5 year olds and when walking with them outdoors they are astounded at how I ‘entertain’ their children – helping them create a stickperson, finding objects for instruments, sending them on scavenger hunts to encourage them to walk further. Despite being outdoorsy people themselves, many comment that they lack the confidence to let their children play independently yet don’t know what to do with them. This is the reason I wrote the Woodland Explorer pack. A little cotton bag with 30 weather resistant cards inside offering 27 activities to inspire play in a woodland setting. Some activities you will have heard of before like ‘Making a Stickperson’ but there are so many ways to develop these ideas further with a little more imagination.

It was amazing as I wrote the cards to consider all the learning potentials of each activity. Take for example the humble hole in the tree mentioned above. Simply looking for holes develops observational skills and communication. Using the hole to frame an area focuses their view helping them see the smaller things in the natural world which we often fail to appreciate. By describing what they see – colours, textures, plants develops language. Describing and creating an imaginary world the other side of the hole allows them to express their ideas and realise their imagination can be put into practice. Using the hole as a target to throw stones through develops their hand/eye co-ordination and collaboration if creating a game for others. The possibilities with learning and play in natural environments are endless and only limited by their imagination.

The important part for us adults to do, and which so many of us struggle with, is to let the child lead. Start the activity yourself but if they don’t follow don’t worry and if they take the activity in a totally different direction that is ok also. For instance, I was making fairy doors with a few children. Having seen the rectangular pieces of wood we had cleaved a child exclaimed, ‘Oh, credit cards, can I have one?’ I was mortified but by the afternoon they all had credit cards and had set up several shops around the woods selling building materials or refreshments. This is proof that great collaboration and communication can develop from one child’s imagination, and the importance of child-led learning.

About the Author

Kim Hudson is a qualified teacher and has worked in mainstream or environmental education for over 20 years. Trading for the last 10 years as Inspiring Outdoors she seeks any opportunity to encourage schools, early years settings and families to create lasting impressions for children of all ages. This includes a consultancy on embedding learning beyond the classroom, school grounds development, teacher training for Royal Horticultural Society and Learning through Landscapes, and a LOtC Mark and Quality Badge assessor for Council for Learning Outside the Classroom. She also co-founded Lincolnshire Forest School and Woodland Network, runs a woodland holiday playscheme and is now developing the Inspiring Outdoors Explorer Packs. The first of which is the Woodland Explorer pack available at www.inspiringoutdoors.co.uk.

Introduction

I believe that creating an inclusive and enabling environment is essential in promoting high standards of early years’ education. My mission statement within my practise is to encourage children to have freedom to make informed choices and take controlled risks. I believe that allowing children to have the freedom to explore is vital as it allows them to develop their personality, curiosity, imagination, language and social skills. These are all skills that will help them to create their own understanding of a very complex world. I believe that within early years we need to foster a love for learning and exploration as when children reach formal schooling, it becomes more focused on meeting targets and less focused on allowing the children time to play and explore.  I feel that within early years it is very important to be able to allow children the freedom to play and explore in order to make sense of the world around them. I believe that children need to be provided with plenty of opportunities to engage in messy play as well as being provided with outdoor play opportunities. In an ideal world, I would love to create a setting that remains child led, allowing them to explore fully and engage in plenty of meaningful play opportunities without being restricted by government targets and structured day to day routines.

Play

I believe that play should be an essential part of every child’s life. Promoting free choice and allowing the children to engage in free-flow between indoor and outdoor is something that I strongly believe will benefit every child. I feel that this allows the children to be able to develop at their own pace, building confidence. I think that children should be given responsibility to be in control of their own development, allowing them to gain independence.

Roberts (2006), supports this, stating that free flow play is beneficial to allow children to combine skills, knowledge and experiences in order to develop without too much adult interference. Roberts (2006) states the importance of practitioners standing back and simply observing children during free – flow play. This is often a time that they are comfortable and relaxed giving practitioners a deeper insight into the child to allow them to support them better. Documents such as the United Nations Convention of Child Rights (United Nations, 1989) further support this, stating the value of children’s freedom to make choices and to have time to themselves. However, Wood (2014) argues that in reality, as much as we try to follow children’s interests in planning and to give them as much free choice as possible, the free choice is always controlled by the practitioners personal views and values by controlling continuous provision, layout of the setting, and defining areas of play. This implies that we are not allowing children complete free choice but scaffolding them and interrupting their play. Tzwo (2007) takes into account both of these viewpoints, arguing that children need adult support as well as free choice to develop. Markstrom and Hallden (2009) argue that the structure and constraints of early years’ education interrupt children’s play and factors such as time, budget, resource availability, staffing and meeting government requirements mean that providing children with complete free choice is impossible. Practitioners are constantly being pressured to “tick boxes” to meet criteria instead of just allowing children to play and develop at their own rate.

In my own experience, I have found that regular structured events such as snack time and dinner time often interrupt a child’s play. For example, in my setting, child K was playing with the trains on the carpet, he was really engaged and focused on building his train track, but dinner time was approaching, so staff had to interrupt his play in order to get tidied up and get ready for dinner. This interrupted child K’s play and his focus on that activity was lost. In my opinion, a child’s play should never be interrupted as their play is invaluable in building so many skills, such as social skills, confidence and language skills. In an idealistic setting, I think it would be more beneficial to have a flexible routine, for example, having a rolling snack so that the children can go and have snack at a time that is right for them. However in reality, due to many of the time restraints and staffing restraints within the early years, this is not always possible.

I like the idea of creating clearly defined areas in a setting, allowing a range of different types of play as I feel that it is important to allow children to develop in all areas. I think that it is important for children to maintain a balance of free choice and adult led/focused activities, because without focused activities there are certain skills that are hard to teach such as using scissors. I think it is very important to have an area or display board which is purely about the children in the setting, their likes and dislikes and perhaps a photo of each of them. This would make the learning more personalised and would mean that staff would develop a much deeper understanding of each child in their care.

Hedges (2010) criticises the idea that adults act upon children’s interests, arguing that adults may misunderstand a child’s interest and understand it through shallow interpretations. Carr (2008) supports this and says that adults tend to assume that children are interested in the things that they engage with in the setting, however argues that this may not necessarily be a true reflect, as the resources may be limited. However, Drake (2009) argues against this and argues that interests of children in setting are often sparked by the provision available and through the play of others, allowing them to become interested in things that they have never experienced at home.

I feel that it is important within an early years setting, to be able to allow children to create positive play experiences, as many children do not get this at home. This is something that I follow within my own practice. I think that it is very important for practitioners to get down on the children’s level and play alongside them, following their lead and following the child’s interests. I work very closely with a 2 year old girl who is currently going through some challenging times; as a result she has become very quiet and withdrawn. In order to support her, I am making sure that I spend time playing with her and following her interests to provide her with a safe place to just play. Children often spend a significant amount of time in an early years setting, so therefore, it is important to be able to provide a safe place for them to play.

I would love to be able to create a setting that very much resembles a “home” environment including comfortable, cosy areas for children to relax, as well as places that children can engage in lots of messy and creative play to challenge their thinking as well as having lots of outdoor space. I think that messy play in one of the most important experiences that a child can have in early years. I feel that messy play is particularly important for babies as it allows them to explore and is not restrictive. Moyles (2010) argues that babies need to engage with messy play as they primarily explore through their senses and messy play allows them to be exposed to sensory stimulation. Forbes (2004) further supports this and argues that sensory play encourages babies to use their own movement to explore the texture, temperature and form of a substance.

 I think that messy play allows a child to really be able to explore and to allow them to be creative, imaginative and to develop their language and is therefore very important to aid their development and to allow them to gain confidence. Parents however may disagree with me, arguing that their children’s clothes get ruined through messy play and that it creates excessive amounts of washing for them to do.  Duffy (2007), argues that parents are often confused as to why their children are being allow to engage in messy play that is often discouraged at home and that they therefore often show unwillingness to allow their child to participate in messy play activities. Duffy (2007), says that the best way to address this as a practitioner is to educate and involve the parents to allow them to see how their child will benefit from messy play. Messy play often has connotations of being muddled and confusing with no clear end product, which leads to a view that it is unimportant and undervalued. Forbes (2004) argues that the term “messy” is demeaning to this type of sensory play and leads to misunderstanding of the benefits behind it. Therefore, by educating staff, parents and other professionals, we can begin to display messy play in a positive way, allowing people to understand the benefits for the children (Duffy, 2007).

Hobart and Frakel (2005), highlight that messy play allows children to benefit from social skills, such as turn taking and sharing, as well as providing them with enjoyment and independence. It is noted that messy play, also provides children with fine motor skills to enhance muscle development as well as stimulating their minds and providing an excellent tool to develop language and communication skills. Barnett (2016) further supports this, arguing that messy play has particular benefits to children who speak little English. In my own experience, I have been working closely with a Polish child, who speaks very little English. I have noticed when engaged in messy play, he appears to use language, both English and Polish at a much quicker rate, as he is engaged and interested and will describe the colours and textures. Duffy (2007), further supports this, saying that children with SEN and EAL needs, benefit from messy play, as it requires them to use no words to be able to play alongside their peers.

Inclusion

Ofsted define inclusion in terms of creating a secure, teaching environment in which every child matters and every child feels valued and supported (DfES, 2001). Often, children are not support at home, so it is becoming increasingly important to create a secure and stable environment that suits every child in the setting. Villa and Thousand (2005) explore the legal definition of “an inclusive education” which they define as the least restrictive environment to ensure that all are valued and supported.   

I believe that creating an inclusive environment means that every single child should be valued, cared for and supported in order to help them to progress regardless of physical barriers, language barriers or abilities. I think that a setting should adapt the setting and train staff in order to suit the individual and best support the child. I currently work with a 2 year old (child A) in my own setting who is paralyzed from the waist down as well as having other complex medical needs. When he started in the setting, we had to go through a variety of procedures in order to make sure that the setting is fully accessible for him. We also had to make sure that staff went on the appropriate moving and handling training in order to be able to use the equipment that he requires. We have had a range of different agencies, such as occupational therapy, physiotherapy as well as moving and handling specialists come into the setting to train staff as well as staff being send away to moving and handling training courses in order to ensure that the practitioners dealing with child A are adequately trained. Clark and Walker (2007) highlight that childcare practitioners qualifications used to be very low but recent government legislation has led to improved standards and therefore higher qualities of training and qualifications required for early years’ workers. Without the high quality of training, staff would not be adequately trained to provide child A with high quality of inclusive, invidual care.

The Warnock Report (DES, 1978), led to many children with special educational needs becoming more integrated into the main stream education system and picked up a flaw that the government lacks strategy and vision to provide adequate care for SEN children. Following on from this idea, the SEN, Code of Practise (DfES, 2001) developed clear advice for settings based on including children, parents and practitioners in the journey to allow mainstream settings to become inclusive. My setting is a mainstream setting and we follow advice from the SEN code of practise daily in order to allow us to be able to cater for a range of different children, including child A as mentioned above who requires high levels of care and training. This document has allowed early years’ settings, to be able to have the knowledge and skills in order to be able to adapt their settings in order to comply with the Ofsted definition of “an inclusive setting” which has ultimately led to higher standards of care and education within the early years. Early Education, in particular when working with children with SEN needs has become more focused on the individual child. I believe that within early years it is important to be able to allow all children to access main stream early years education. I think that children with SEN needs will benefit from being given opportunities to play and interact with a wide range of children with differing abilities. I think that it is very important to allow all children to be able to positively notice physical differences between them and their peers in order to help early years’ practitioners to educate them into becoming accepting and inclusive adults.

Tayler and Price (2016) highlight the influence of the whole setting ethos in creating an emphasis on inclusive practice. They state that the most effective and inclusive settings have leaders which establish a positive environment and that hold staff accountable for creating practises that promote equalities and inclusion. I think that an effective leader is one that values all staff and makes them feel that they are listened to, encouraging them to work as a team. In a previous setting that I worked in, the manager failed to listen to staff, making them feel like they were not valued. This significantly impacted on the whole team performance.

I believe that it is very important in allowing parents to see the philosophy and practises behind a setting and to understand that every child will be supported and valued in the setting. I feel that if a setting is honest with parents from the very start and clearly states the settings philosophy through a vision statement, then parents are more likely to get involved and have a better relationship with practitioners, leading to a higher standard of early years’ education through better partnership working. Tayler and Price (2016), argue that when parents are looking for a setting that would support their child, they need to find very clear signals in the setting vision statement, it is no good simply assuming that a parent will see good inclusive practices. My current setting’s vision statement makes it very clear to parents that we follow an inclusive philosophy by using strong words such as “all” “families” and “communities” to allow that parents to feel that both them and their child will be valued and included as part of a community.

EYFS

The Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum (EYFS) enables setting to be able to provide high standards of care for young children and provides a clear, common framework for all practitioners to use to monitor, plan, track, observe and assess children’s progress within the early years (Beckley, et al 2009). Sylva et al (2004), argues that good quality pre-school experiences support children with their social and emotional development and this particularly benefits those from a disadvantaged background. I have seen the impact that receiving high quality care can have for a number of children that perhaps do not receive high quality care at home. For example, I worked very closely with child M and child L, brother and sister, they often came into setting unclean and hungry, I would provide the children with breakfast when they entered the setting and would put them in clean, dry clothes, I begun to work closely with mum in order to support her to provide better care at home. Following the EYFS allowed me to think about many different areas of their development and allowed me to see the link that meeting basic needs would have on other areas of development, for example, social, emotional and physical. I saw dramatic improvement for the two children during the 2 years that they attending the setting and through tracking their progress, following the guidance of the EYFS, I was able to show how they had progressed in each of the different areas and see how these areas affected each other.

The ever-changing nature of society and of the early years’ sector may mean that the EYFS becomes outdated quickly. Baldock et al (2009) describes early years’ policy as a social construct, depending on the recent trends and dominant viewpoints of the time that it was constructed. The early years’ sector is every changing and the EYFS needs to keep up with those changes in order to provide an effective early years’ curriculum. For example, our recent society has become digital orientated and young children are increasingly being provided with tablets, computers and other electronic devices and less likely to be able to experience simple pop up or mechanical toys. Whilst there is still a section of the EYFS allowing the assessment of a child’s interest and competency with technology, this contains statements such as “shows an interest in technology toys with knobs or pulleys” and “completes a simple programme on the computer” (DfE, 2014). Within the current society perhaps these could be seen as outdated as children may not have the access to toys with knobs and pulleys or computers and instead are much more likely to have access to touch screen tablets. I think that it is very important to try and make assessment strategies and early years curriculums reflect on the current society as much as possible to allow us to be able to tailor early years education to suit the needs of all children. We need to be able to try and make early years education as relatable as possible in order to allow the children to adapt and grown into an ever-changing society.

Planning

I believe that is important to plan exciting opportunities, following the children’s interests. This is much more likely to encourage them to gain confidence and develop. The Reggio Emilia approach supports this idea, focusing on the child at the centre of planning, observations and assessments. This approach argues that a child is more likely to develop and engage in activities if they have expressed an interest in it (Early Education, 2006). Bruce (2006) further supports this, arguing that if a child is interested in something, then they are likely to be happy and engaged, therefore getting more out of the activity. However, Chesworth (2016) criticises this, arguing that we can never fully plan for the interests of a child, especially for children who cannot communicate, as adults often tend to make assumptions of what children should be interested in rather than what they are actually interested in.

 I think that as practitioners, we should not only be acting on interests that we observe children engage in in setting, but we should be conversing with parents to find out the things they enjoy at home. Parents are the people that understand the child best, so therefore, I think that it is important to try and involve parents, practitioners and the child in the process of planning so that provision can be tailored to the needs and interests of the individual children. Drake (2006) argues that as practitioners, we should acknowledge that a child’s parents are their first and most influential educators, therefore they should be included in the planning, through telling practitioners of activities that there child has been enjoying. However, in my own experiences, I have come across parents who simply are not interested in communicating with settings. This is a barrier that many practitioners face. Moyles (1989) argues that the only way to try and allow parents to understand the early years is by providing sessions that provide hands on experiences so that they can see the benefits for themselves.

In my opinion, planning should be in place to enhance the continuous provision that is already in place. Drake (2009) argues that provision should be planned so that children have a range of activities on offer and should remain constant so that children have chance to revisit and adapt their work. I think that planning should list the activities that practitioners put out to support a certain child’s next steps or to follow a specific interest and should remain constant over a week, adding and changing things according to their interests. I think that the best way to implement this would be to ensure that child’s initials are included on the planning along with their next step. This will make it clear why that activity has been put out. It will also allow all staff to be able to made suitable observations that feed into the development journeys. Sheridan (2004) argues that observations are crucial in providing practitioners with a full understanding of the child and that these must feed into planning and assessment in order to create a full picture of the child.

Transition to school

Despite early years’ education having a strong focus on play based learning, when they begin formal schooling at aged 4, the focus becomes much more about sitting down and learning and the playfulness element of early years becomes lost in a sea of assessments and meeting formal targets. I believe that children should be allowed to engage in play based experiences right up until the age of 7, as children are able to gain so many invaluable skills from play based learning. Margetts (2007) argues that the time between ages 5 and 6 is one of the most important stages of development for a child where they gain independence, responsibility and start to form influential peer relationships. She therefore argues that introducing formal schooling at aged 4 can be detrimental to a child’s learning as a child needs to be in a play based environment until the age of 6 (Margetts 2007). Rutter and Rutter (1992), support this, arguing that there is a big step between early years and formal schooling and some children adapt to this change much more quickly than other children.

In my opinion, transition should be made as easy as possible as it is often a stressful time for children as well as for parents. I believe that settings should support children and parents with these transitions, by organizing visits to the school as well as equipping the child with pictures and information about the new school, the class they might be in and the uniform that they are going to be wearing. This should help to slowly ease the child into the transition into formal schooling, helping them to settle better.

I think settings should be providing schools with adequate information and assessment about the child, so the school can get to know the child and be able to work from previous next steps. By having adequate information about a child before they go to school, the school can begin to put strategies in place to support the child as they start the setting. Drake (2006) supports this and argues that it is very important for staff to maintain strong links with the schools and to be able to support the child within the transition. She argues that settings should be sending learning summaries with supporting evidence as well as personal information about the child, perhaps with photos so that the school can have a deeper knowledge and understanding of the child, before they arrive (Drake, 2006). This would be especially useful for foundation stage 2 teachers who are receiving an influx of children in one go as it would give them an understanding of where each child is developmentally and how they can best support them. I have recently developed a new transition formwork to send to schools to support the child in transition and to help to build a better relationship with the schools. I feel that this has helped us to work with the school to provide smooth transitions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would aim to create an environment which enables all children to be able to succeed and to develop. I would aim to create a setting that promotes and encourages the importance of play. I believe that play is the most important aspect of early years that is often discouraged when children reach formal schooling. Therefore children should be encourage to spend as much time engaging with new and exciting play opportunities within early years. I particularly believe that messy play has massive benefits to children in allowing them to develop confidence, language and fine motor skills. I think that messy play is a particular benefit for babies and that they should be provided with lots of opportunities to engage in messy play on the floor to provide non-walking babies the opportunities to engage with it too. I also believe that aspects such as planning and the early years’ foundation stage curriculum are also beneficial to be able to create an enabling and engaging environment within early years. In an idealistic setting, planning should be child led and follow the children’s interests as much as possible. I think that by following a child’s lead, they are much more likely to be interested and engaged which will benefit their development in the long run.

Reference List

Baldock, P., Fitzgerald, D. and Kay, J. (2009) Understanding Early Years Policy: Second Edition. London: SAGE Publications

Barnett, A. (2016) A Reflective Encounter with the Fine Sand Area in a Nursery School Setting. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30 (2) pgs. 260-272

Beckley, P., Elvidge, K. and Hendry, H. (2009) Implementing the Early Years Foundation Stage: A Handbook. London: Open University Press

Brooker, L. and Edwards, S. (2010) Engaging play. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Open University Press

Bruce, T. (2006) Early Childhood: a guide to students. London: SAGE Publications

Carr, M. (2008) Presentation to Hui Topu. Professional Development for Early Childhood Education. New Zealand.

Chesworth, E. (2016) A Funds of Knowledge Approach to Examining Play Interests: Listening to Children’s and Parent’s Perspective. International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol 24 (3) pgs. 294-308

Clark, M. and Waller, T. (2007) Early Childhood Education and Care: policy and practice. London: SAGE Publications

Department for Education (DfE) (2014) Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Framework, Outcomes and Development Matters. Crown Copyright, UK

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2001) Inclusive Schooling: Children with Special Educational Needs. Nottingham, UK

Department of Education and Science (DES) (1978) Report of the committee of inquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people. (The Warnock Report), London (HMSO)

Drake, J. (2006). Transition between Settings. Available from: www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery.world/news/1080194/transition-setting

Drake, J. (2009) Planning for Children and Play and Learning. London: Routledge

Early Education Support (2006). The Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Years Education, Learning and Teaching, Scotland

Forbes, R. (2004) Beginning to Play: Young Children from Birth to Five. London: Open University Press

Hobart, C. and Frakel, J. (2005) A Practical Guide to Activities for Young Children. London: Nelson Thornes

Margetts, K. (2007) Understanding and Supporting Children: Shaping Transition in Practice. In Dunlop, H. and Fabian, A. W. (2007) Informing Transition in the Early Years Research Policy and Practice. London: Open University Press.

Markstrom, A.M. and Hallden, G. (2009) Children’s Strategies for Agency in Pre-School. Children and Society. 23(2) pgs.112-122

Moyles, J. (2010) The Excellence of Play. Open University Press. Available from: http://www.mylibrary.com?ID=334355

Moyles, J. (1989) Just Playing?: Role and Status of Play in Early Childhood Education. London: Open University Press

Roberts, R (2006) Self – Esteem and Early Learning: Key People from birth to school. London: Paul Chapman Educational Publishing

Rutter, M. and Rutter, M. (1992). Developing Minds. Challenging and Continuity across Life Span. London: Routledge

Sheridan, M. (2004) From Birth to Five Years, Children’s Developmental Progress. Fourth Edition. London: Routledge

Sylva, K. and Taggart, B. (2004) Effective Pre-School Education. Available from: http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/5309/1/sylva2004EPPEfinal.pdf.

Tayler, K. and Price, D.  (2016) Gender, Diversity and Inclusion in Early Years Education. London: Routledge

Tzuo, P.W. (2007) The Tension between Teacher control and children’s freedom in a child centred classroom: Resolving the practical dilemma through a closer look at the related theories. Early Childhood Education Journal 35(1) pgs.133-139

United Nations (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), Geneva: United Nations.

Villa, R. and Thousand, J. (2005) Creating an Inclusive School. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Wood, E. (2014) Free Choice and Free Play In Early Education: Troubling the Discourse. International Journal for Early Years Education. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/90669760.2013.830562

Babies and Young Children in Learning and Educational Contexts

Introduction

In this essay I will discuss my own personal pedagogy towards early years as an enabling learning environment based on my belief that play is the foundation upon which early learning is built and a vital component of successful early years practice. “Play is the highest expression of human development in childhood, for it alone is the free expression of what is in a child’s soul” (Froebel 1887, cited in Brostrom, 2016, p. 3). This theory of letting children express themselves through play, allowing them to be who they are and leaving them to develop in their own time without the need to meet targets facilitates an inclusive environment and fosters a curriculum that is focused on the individual child. I will critically analyse practices within my own setting using relevant theories to support my beliefs and look at the difficulties of implementing some of these practices in real life.

Play

The term play can mean different things to different people and varies between different countries and cultures. Some play involves adults, some play involves toys, play may involve mixed age groups or it may be linked to adult creativity and imagination (Bruce, 2011). In their research into the value of play for different cultures Goncu et al (2000) found that what is termed play can differ widely between communities and yet they also discovered that all of these children developed in the same way, therefore different styles of play or non-play activities can still serve the same function developmentally. I believe that play in all its forms is an essential part of children’s learning and development, and that whilst it should be spontaneous and child initiated, free play alone is not always sufficient for children to develop.  I believe there should also be adult support in order to help guide and extend this play.  Children come from different backgrounds and are brought up in different circumstances and for some children learning how to play in itself can be a development need.

I feel that a combination of both child led and adult directed play can be beneficial to a setting. Children’s independent play is essential for us as practitioners as it allows children to develop their creative abilities and encourages them to think and explore for themselves, developing those skills that make up the characteristics of effective learning. Erikson, (1963 cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2013) believes children have a pro-active role in their own development and are active in their own environment. By providing children with the appropriate safe resources and emotional support to explore they can develop their sense of power over the environment without forming a sense of guilt from disapproval. This is an approach also taken by Malaguzzi (cited in Gray and MacBlain, 2012) co-founder of the Reggio Emilia approach who believes that children are agents of their own learning with the environment acting as the third teacher.

It is through our observations of children at play that we can assess how children are learning and progressing and determine how much interaction children need and the level of support they may require in order to extend that learning. At my setting we have a play based pedagogy and believe that play is essential, as is a positive learning environment including appropriate resources, adult support and input. We use sustained shared thinking and open ended questioning in our interactions with children.  We encourage the children to think of ideas to extend their learning themselves. We do not interrupt purposeful play for group work activities, ‘teaching’ comes through extending children’s self-initiated play and activities that are set up based on specific areas of the curriculum. We help to direct play by observing and following the interests of the children. We plan ‘in the moment’ based on what the children are enjoying playing with and their individual style of play and learning (Ephgrave, 2015).  This planning ensures that the mixture of continuous resources and planned activities that we provide are tailored to the interests of the child and therefore they are more likely to be engaged in the process.

I believe that having a pedagogy based on solely child initiated and led independent play would be limiting in its scope. Some children need support in their play and the extra confidence that comes from playing with or alongside a familiar adult. Some children are unable to imagine what is achievable without having somebody make them aware of the possibilities first.  We had a child who only played with trains and would sit and play with trains to the exclusion of everything else every day.  As a practitioner it was essential for me to step in and try to extend this learning so that the play was purposeful and the child was progressing.  To do this we built a train track outside to bring them outdoors, we painted trains, created trains with boxes, read stories about trains, drew trains, used train number activities, and turned our role play area into a train station. This enabled us to extend the child’s learning whilst still holding their interest and building on what they enjoyed.

So whilst independent play is an important part of children’s learning my approach is more in line with the findings of Sylva et al (2006, p. 1) who in her research found that the most effective pedagogy for early years included “interaction traditionally associated with the term ‘teaching’, the provision of instructive learning environments and ‘sustained shared thinking’ to extend children’s learning.”    She found the quality of a setting and quality and qualifications of the staff influenced children’s outcomes, as did having a balanced curriculum. Adult input was also an important factor in achieving a quality learning environment. Bandura (1977 cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014) also believes that children are ‘active learners’ and his observational learning theory acknowledges how the environment influences learning through the actions and behaviours of staff as role models.  According to Sylva et al (2006) the quality of adult-child verbal interactions, including ‘sustained shared thinking’, open ended questioning and providing formative feedback during activities had a strong influence on children’s outcomes. The report also found that outcomes were best when there was an equal balance of child and adult initiated activity, that extending children’s self-initiated play with the provision of adult initiated group work were the most effective methods of learning.  Adult input was essential for the development of curriculum related activities such as maths and phonics, as was adult support in encouraging children to participate in more challenging play. Bruce (2011) also believes that adults play a crucial role in developing children’s play by bringing together and connecting everything that children know.  And Froebel (1887 cited in Brostrom, 2016) supports the belief that play can be adult directed with a learning perspective. Like Groos (1901) he highlights the importance of play in children’s learning finding that some adult support was essential in ensuring play does not become dangerous for the child and to direct play in a purposeful and good direction. He suggested that this could be achieved by providing suitable resources. 

 I also believe that children should be allowed an input into their learning environment and the nature of their own play, shaping the resources we provide, thus ensuring the learning environment is gender neutral and non-specific with activities geared for children’s specific interests not led by stereotypes or assumptions.  We have an A3 children’s planning book which we use daily to jot down children’s ideas for future play. The Children’s Commissioner (2017) emphasises that listening to children is an essential part of creating an enabling community where children’s views are acted on and respected, validating their decisions and giving them an increased sense of self-worth and confidence.

There has been much research into the positive qualities of play. It is an essential part of the development of language (Vygotsky 1978, cited in Goncu, 2000), it allows children to master experiences and the physical world (Bruner, 1972), it teaches children social skills such as the ability to interact with peers (Parten 1932, cited in Gouncu, 2000), and gives children the ability to put experiences into categories (Bateson 1955, cited in Goncu, 2000). Research has shown that the richer and more varied a baby’s learning environment and activities are the more the brain is stimulated and the more powerful it becomes (Bloom 1964, cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014).  This is also supported by Piaget’s cognitive development theory (1962 cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014) where children are viewed as active participants in their own learning through schemas. He believes children’s thinking develops in stages and is a cumulative process. So the appropriate experiences that a setting provides enhances cognitive development and a child’s desire to learn. In the pre-school pre-operational stage unstructured play activities are an important part in developing children’s cognitive development.

A criticism of Piaget’s development theory is that it assumes children can only think from their own perspective and fails to take into account that the thoughts and beliefs of other people can affect children’s cognition (Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2003, cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014). Piaget (1962 cited in Bukatatko and Daehler, 2011) saw children’s cognitive development as an individual journey, whilst Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (cited in Bukatatko and Daehler, 2011) and later the work of Bruner (1973 cited in Doherty and Hughes 2014) argue that whilst children learn by doing, thinking is a socially constructed process influenced by society as well as the environment and learning takes place when the child is in their ‘zone of proximal development’ which is when children benefit from the help of other adults. More recently Van de Veer and Valsiner (1991, cited in Brostrom, 2016) argue that it is not the play itself that contributes to the child’s development, it is only when the teacher plays an active, encouraging role that the child develops new meanings and understandings. 

Another important aspect of my own pedagogy is ensuring free flow play, where children can choose whether to play inside or outside. Children are unique and have different learning styles, and environments need to reflect these different styles. At my setting we have children who love to play outside and learn best when using gross movement outdoors.  In order to ensure these children are optimising their learning outdoors we ensure there is adequate learning opportunity outside that covers the whole of the EYFS curriculum (2014).  I have recently attended training on maths in the outdoor environment and other staff have attended literacy in the outdoors training, and as a setting we are refurbishing and designing our outdoor area to ensure we are optimizing the outdoor learning opportunities.  This style of outdoor learning and play is encouraged by Forest Schools, an approach to learning originating in Scandinavia, with an emphasis on outdoor learning and exploration, natural resources to stimulate curiosity and interest, real world tools and resources, and with adults working alongside children to make a vital difference to provision (Constable, 2014).

In my experience, it can sometimes be difficult to convince parents of the learning potential of a play based pedagogy with the expectation that their child needs to be having formal group times based on numbers and phonics, where they are sat on a carpet or table listening to a teacher talking in order for them to be learning. It can also be a challenge to meet the needs of such a wide variety of children with different interests and of different ages without segregation and formalised group learning.

We overcome these issues by ensuring the learning environment meets the needs of all children by undertaking regular audits and ensuring we have age and development appropriate toys for children both indoors and outdoors, ensuring activities are varied for different ages and that key workers are planning to meet their key children’s needs and interests and regularly sharing progress with parents to demonstrate that children are developing. This is especially pertinent in areas such as phonics and numeracy which some parents become increasingly concerned with as children approach school age. We also send out a parents’ version of the ‘What to expect, when?’ document, 4Children (2015), which outlines what children should generally be expected to do by certain ages to help parents understand what skills it is their children should be developing as opposed to what parents feel their children should be able to do by the time they reach school.

Outdoor play also poses challenges with parents who do not want their children playing outside in winter as they worry they may catch colds or they dislike them getting wet or dirty. To try and overcome this I have created a transition area with all in one suits and wellingtons for the children at pre-school to wear when they are indulging in wet and messy outdoor play.  I feel the experience of playing outdoors is important and provides different opportunities to learn, through gross motor play, compared to indoor play.  However, providing this free flow play depends on having sufficient flexible staffing to cover both inside and outside provision, which is not always financially viable for settings.

Inclusion

I feel that inclusion is another very important aspect of early year’s environments. The Children and Families Act (2014) legislates teaching should be inclusive with high expectations of all children and I have found that often, in practice, an inclusive pedagogy with additional support can benefit the whole setting. We have a child in my setting who has speech and language difficulties and is receiving a course of speech and language therapy.  A therapist comes in to work with him every week undertaking specific activities and she has also provided the setting with resources to use.  As much of this learning is play based and requires games and adult interaction there are several other children in the setting who also enjoying joining in with the activities and their own speech, language and social skills are improving as a result of this. So tailoring provision to meet the needs of individual children can often improve provision for all.  

If children’s needs are sufficient they may receive support in the form of additional funding to cover increased staffing demands. The EYFS (2014, p. 5) states that “every child deserves the best possible start in life and the support that enables them to fulfil their potential.” This allows children with special educational needs to receive extra provision, in addition to, or different from that which is universally provided, through Special Education Needs (SEN) support, or for those requiring even more support an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. 

Whilst this would be ideal, depending on the nature of the child’s needs, with funding in short supply, in reality it can sometimes be difficult to get this additional support and often with low staffing numbers and finite resources it can sometimes be difficult to meet the needs of individual children without it being at the expense of the rest of the children in the setting. This means that we as practitioners sometimes have to face a social dilemma.  I have a child in my setting who requires additional support.  Whilst we as a setting do not want to treat them differently or make them stand out, at the same time, we have to highlight their difficulties when writing reports and assessing them in order for us to get the support that will enable them to access the same level of education as everyone else and meet their full potential. This additional support will also benefit the rest of the class whose learning is currently being disrupted by the behaviours.

This contradiction can also be seen within the EYFS (2014) itself. It talks about children being ‘unique’, that environments should respond to their individual needs, and recognises that all children learn and develop at different rates and in different ways, but at the same time it also measures children against development ‘norms’ with children being classed as either ‘exceeding’ or not yet reaching ‘emerging’ expected levels of development. This can lead to what Norwich (2005) terms the dilemma of difference, where he identifies the conflict between the government advocating inclusion for children with special educational needs in mainstream schooling so as not to marginalise or stigmatise them, but at the same time a huge rise in the number of statements for children in order for these schools to meet targets and for the government to be seen as raising standards.

Whilst considering inclusion it is also important to bear in mind the different needs of the children in a setting, such as the range of different ages, heights, and abilities. It is essential that the learning environment is designed so that resources are accessible and safe for all children, with special regard for younger children and those with learning difficulties and sensory impairment. At my setting we provide resources that meet everybody’s needs and all our resources are labelled and in boxes on low shelves so they can be reached by all the children. Activities are planned to ensure differentiation, they are delivered in a variety of different ways and placed at different levels, some at floor level on tough spots whilst others are placed on table tops. There are potties available for younger children and step up stools available for the sinks and toilets as well as the sand and water trays if needed, with different sized chairs available to suit individual children’s needs and preferences.  Being inclusive also means adapting practice and activities to make them inclusive for children who have allergies, such as using gluten free pasta and playdough as malleable resources for a child who was coeliac

The resources at my setting support Goldschmied (1994), in her pedagogy of learning through the senses. She highlights the importance of resources such as treasure baskets and sensory bottles to provide a stimulating environment for children with special needs. Children have been shown to like variety in their learning. This concept of accelerated learning, is based on the idea that children, especially those with learning difficulties or sensory impairments, benefit from a broad range of teaching approaches, visual, auditory and kinaesthetic and that needs to be reflected in the learning environment (Lee and Horsefall 2010, cited in Doherty and Hughes, 2014).

Haegele and Hodge (2016) consider two models of disability. The medical model puts an emphasis on the biological and psychological origins of disability, where the impairment itself is seen as the problem and individuals are deemed faulty and needing repair. This can lead to segregation and discrimination. As a reaction to this people with disabilities created a social model of disability where the problem is seen as lying with attitudes within society and the environment, and how it is society not being set up to deal with impairment that causes it to become a disability.  It is this social model that influences our inclusive practices in school by encouraging us to adapt our practices and environments to make them inclusive for all children.

One of the problems with this inclusive approach to resources and the environment is the difficulty of keeping children safe and restricting access to certain items depending on the age of the children within a mixed age setting. There are some items such as small beads that older children may enjoy using for threading that could be dangerous for younger children or those with disabilities that still like the sensory experience of putting things in their mouths.  This can mean additional demands on staffing to oversee and monitor these activities carefully, ensuring that younger children, and those with special needs, are being kept safe at all times whilst still stretching the abilities and learning of older children.

Whilst the social model of disability with an inclusive approach to all is one to be aspired to, in reality it is not always practical. My setting has a number of very steep steps to come down in order to enter the building which can make access difficult for people who have a physical disability. Whilst we are aware of barriers such as these, they can be difficult to overcome without a great deal of money to adapt the environment by installing a lift, or ramp which would allow easier access.

 I feel that the non-verbal voice of the child is also an important aspect of inclusion for early years’ settings to consider. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1992) states that “parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child”.  We have a child at my setting with Downs Syndrome who has delayed speech and language and therefore we use Makaton in order to aid their understanding of what we are saying and also as a means for them to communicate with us and have their voice heard. We also encourage the other children in the setting to use Makaton by having signs around the classroom and a sign of the week which all children are taught and encouraged to use with each other. We also use a visual timetable which all children find beneficial in using as a pictorial reference for their day. It can be easy to make assumptions about children and it can be harder to include the voice of the child when children are younger and don’t have the ability to verbalise their likes and dislikes or have difficulties with communication. But listening to children isn’t just about verbal skills, it also involves observing, picking up on their body language, the choices they make, their level of involvement, and the noises they make, laughing and giggling. 

Alison Clark (2008) defines listening as “an active process of receiving (hearing and observing), interpreting and responding to communication. It includes all the senses and emotions and is not limited to the spoken word”. She believes that by listening we can provide an environment in which children will grow in confidence, feel safe, feel powerful and have the ability to express themselves. By listening to children we show them respect and this is essential to the process of learning, especially for children who have difficulties communicating.

It is not only disability, age or ability that differentiates between children, but also culture. I feel it is important for children to feel included in a setting by embracing and sharing in their different cultures and languages. This can be achieved by learning and using common words in the child’s home language, such as hello and goodbye, and encouraging families to come in and share their language and culture with the setting. At my setting we also encourage diversity by providing role play resources such as Chinese dining sets and different styles of food as well as multi-cultural dolls and multicultural clothing.  This recognition of the diversity in society is evident in the EYFS (2014) which sets out a requirement for settings to recognise and include children’s home languages in their play and learning and provide support for language development at home.

There can however be difficulties with this integration of cultures, with barriers to communication if the family do not speak English and cultural variations in what parents expect from a pre-school setting in terms of behaviour and approach to learning, with some cultures preferring a more formal style of education and others a more relaxed approach. Dietary needs also need to be considered with cultural variations surrounding what children are allowed to eat at snack times based on their culture or religion. To reduce this issue we only offer fresh fruit and vegetables for snack options therefore ensuring a healthy diet and ensuring everybody is able to have the same food stuffs at snack time making it an inclusive activity for all children.

Curriculum

In recent years the importance of early years education has become increasingly recognised. Whilst historically there was no formal curriculum and little government intervention in the work of pre-schools (Kwon, 2002), government intervention has increased over time. The Early Years Foundation Stage (2014) is the framework which all early years providers must now work to.  It became statutory in England in September 2012 and was recently revised and updated in 2017. It was created to ensure a standard of care throughout all providers ensuring every child has the best possible start in life (Doherty and Hughes, 2014). 

I think it is important that we have a curriculum that is inclusive and flexible so it can be tailored to the needs of individual children taking into account that not all children conform to what is deemed as ‘normal’ and all children are unique. I feel that the best approach to the curriculum is to have children engaged in individual discovery through play and exploration but with adult input and guidance to help them make sense of the things they discover. I believe we need a curriculum to act as a general indicator of what is typical development for children which allows us to determine whether a child is falling behind in some areas and offer them additional support, but it needs to be more play based with less emphasis on ticking boxes and categorising of children.  Although there are questions to be asked of whether that is based on the curriculum itself or individual settings desires to be seen to be making progress, completing the right paperwork and providing sufficient evidence. It is our knowledge of the EYFS (2012) that influences the learning environment we provide for our children and the curriculum we create to meet the requirements and desired outcomes of this framework.

The EYFS (2012) also requires us as practitioners to share the development and progress of children with parents, which is very important, as support from parents in their children’s learning is extremely beneficial with children’s learning extending beyond the boundaries of the classroom into children’s homes and beyond, and these interactions can have a direct influence on children’s development and learning, especially their social and emotional development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Therefore, it is important that settings incorporate parents and the wider community into achieving these aspects of the EYFS through their curriculum. The EYFS also covers areas such as child protection which are essential is ensuring children are kept safe.

The EYFS promotes the teaching of skills and knowledge in the three prime areas, Communication and language, physical development, and personal, social and emotional development, which provide the foundations for all future learning. Then later mathematics, literacy, understanding the world and expressive arts and design (EYFS, 2012). The framework states that children’s interests, needs and stage of development also need to be considered when planning, so the curriculum needs to look at the whole child and not focus on just the desired skills and knowledge.  This is supposed to allow practitioners freedom and scope in how they achieve these outcomes and offer flexibility.

However, as a practitioner, I feel there is an increasing emphasis on cascading the specific areas of the curriculum, especially maths and literacy, downwards from schools. The early years’ curriculum divides opinion. There are those that make the policies and work towards children being ‘ready’ for school, such as Woodhead (1999 cited in Kwon, 2002) who believes that even at the age of 3 or 4 learning should be done in a formal manner through direct teaching, and those who feel the curriculum needs to be more developmentally appropriate.

Pring (2004 cited in Goouch, 2008) voiced concern that teaching is becoming based on delivering the curriculum rather than actually engaging with the minds of the children. She is supported in this thinking by Young (2006) who feels that more attention is being given to targets and goals than it is to children, and Anning (1998) who feels the governments’ aim of raising standards may lead to over emphasis on formal teaching in order to meet targets. The introduction of OFSTED (2001) inspections for preschool settings has increased the pressure on settings to reach prescribed learning outcomes which encourages a more subject based approach in areas such as literacy and numeracy, as preschools that do not meet these requirements may lose their funding. The leap from child centred curriculum at pre-school to a subject based National Curriculum means that in order to prepare children for school there is a conflict between these two styles of curriculum which has an effect on how children are encouraged to learn before they reach school age (Moss and Penn 1996, cited in Kwon, 2002). Also, the move from the play based pedagogy in the EYFS to a more formal teacher based pedagogy in key stage one can make the transition difficult for some children (Fisher, 2009).  Rogoff (1990) believes teachers need to ‘lead by following’ and move away from pre-planned curricular activities and follow instead the child’s own play objectives, which as Goouch (2008) points out does not always tick the right box or fall into a specific category in an audit.  

Another criticism of the curriculum is linked to Piaget’s egocentric thinking discussed earlier. Donaldson (1978) suggests that Piaget’s theory of children needing to be ‘ready’ to move on to the next stage of thinking has led to a lack of structure and progression in the curriculum. And Bruner (1974 cited in Kwon, 2002) considered that whilst knowing how children develop is important it is not the only aspect upon which early years practice should be based.  There is a need to combine this knowledge of child development with pedagogical knowledge about teaching and an understanding of knowledge itself. 

As a practitioner I feel that on a day to day basis there are a number of challenges to be faced when working within the restraints of the EYFS framework. As a setting we feel a pressure to be reporting, evidencing and planning for all of our children on a constant basis, but do not have the funding available to pay staff for administration time in which to write up observations, assessments and reports so this is often completed in staff’s own time. This administrative burden was found to be particularly challenging for reception class teachers where there are higher staff to child ratios so fewer staff and the additional need to find time to complete the end of foundation stage profile, especially with questions being asked over the usefulness of the profile (Brooker et al, 2010). 

Brooker et al (2010) conducted a report looking at the challenges of the EYFS framework. Whilst most settings were positive about the EYFS there were common challenges that settings faced.  Risk assessments were a particular area of burden for some practitioners with the requirement to formally record all aspects of risk time consuming.  They felt the time taken to complete increased paperwork was excessive, constantly observing, assessing, planning, risk assessing, tracking and monitoring to provide evidence was taking staff away from the role of teacher. In reception classes higher staff ratios also mean that with only two members of staff to thirty children it is difficult to encourage free flow provision with only one member of staff outside and one member inside.  This makes the transition from pre-school where children are one of eight in a key worker group to reception where they suddenly become one of thirty difficult for some who suddenly find themselves with much less support.

I also feel that there are some gaps in the curriculum. Take for example speech and language.  I had a child who was reaching their milestone targets in communication and language but I referred them for speech and language therapy because they couldn’t enunciate their sounds correctly, so although the child was reaching their speaking goals they were unable to form some words correctly.  Thee are currently receiving blocks of speech and language therapy as well as being supported by myself with addition SALT time at school and making good progress.  But this development issue was identified by professional judgement rather than showing up on the EYFS progress tracker demonstrating that the system is not infallible and professional judgement is still necessary.

Children with special educational needs may also not fit in to the EYFS as speech and language difficulties may mean they are unable to communicate their understanding and vocalise their ideas in order to meet their targets. I also feel the EYFS is open to interpretation by individual practitioners, so judgements of where a child is in their development can vary from one practitioner to another.

An alternative curriculum approach is the Montessori approach founded by Maria Montessori in 1906 with her philosophy of child centred education. This is based around Dewey’s theory of individualism (1959, cited in Kwon, 2002) where the child choses the curriculum rather than the teacher, and children learn through exploration and manipulation of their environment.  Isaacs (2012) explains how the Montessori approach recognises children as active learners who need to be given the opportunity to work independently and given choices, with the adult acting as a facilitator in the process and providing an appropriate learning environment.  It supports the view that children are intrinsically motivated to learn through curiosity and a desire to explore. The focus is on the child as an individual as opposed to the current system of putting children into developmental ‘norm’ boxes.   Some aspect of Montessori can be seen in the curriculum at my setting, such as continuous provision, which I feel is very important and is an area that requires much consideration due to the huge impact this can have on learning.

There are criticisms of this approach though. Galton (1987) called the theory of a curriculum totally dictated by children’s interests as “romantic”, with Blenkin and Kelly (1987 cited in Kwon, 2002) stating that children cannot discover something unless they understand what it is they are discovering. This is a criticism supported by McIntyre (1988 cited in Kwon, 2002) who found that free play in children tended to result in simple, repetitive activities with little additional challenge. And Meadows and Cashdan (1988 cited in Kwon 2002) finding that with free flow play teachers did not push and challenge the children.

Alternatively Malaguzzi (1996 cited in Bruce, 2011) describes another approach to an early childhood curriculum developed in Reggio Emilia in the belief that there are many ways to play. Constable (2014) describes how the Reggio approach places an emphasis on the relationships between children and adults, and also between the children themselves. It is a creative curriculum where children are given space to explore freely, are exposed to different experiences, given time to develop their own ideas and the freedom to learn new skills without the pressure of meeting development norms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe in an inclusive, play based pedagogy, essential for observation and assessment that is a combination of quality teacher interactions and support, and self-chosen constructive play activities. I feel that providing an enabling environment and giving children free flow access to open ended engaging resources allows them to develop their own interests that we as staff can then build on. I think it is important to encourage an inclusive culture and ethos and this means not only making your learning environment suitable for children with disabilities or developmental delays, but, also an acceptance and celebration of other cultures and beliefs. But having worked in more than one setting it is clear to me that different settings have different pedagogies that work for them and their children, some that have been created with purpose and others that have evolved over time.  As early years settings in England we have a duty to follow the legislation as set down in the EYFS and create a curriculum that involves a fine balancing act between play based learning and meeting the criteria for formal assessments, whilst ensuring the focus remains on the child. So, whilst all settings have ‘ideal’ pedagogies the realities and difficulties of achieving these such as funding, parental expectations, staffing, time, resources and space often have an impact on the provision that we can deliver.

References

4Children, (2015). What to expect, when? 4Children (supported by DfE)

Anning, A. (1998). Appropriateness or effectiveness in the early childhood curriculum in the UK: Some research evidence, in International Journal of Early Years Education. 6(3) p. 299-314

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press

Brooker, L., Rogers, S., Ellis, D., Hallet, E. and Roberts-Holmes, G. (2010) Practitioners’ Experiences of the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: DfE. Available from [WWW]         https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181511/DFE-RR029.doc  Accessed May 2017

Brostrom, S. (2016) A dynamic learning concept in early years’ education: a possible way to prevent schoolification , in International Journal of Early Years Education. 25(1) pp. 3-15, Available from [WWW] http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196?scroll=top&needAccess=true Accessed April 2017

Bruce, T. (2011) Learning Through Play, For babies, toddlers and young children. (2^nd Ed.) Hodder Education

Bruner, J.S. (1972) The nature and uses of immaturity, in American Psychologist. (27) pp. 687-708

Bukatatko, D. and Daehler, M. (2011) Child Development: A thematic approach. (Int. Ed.) Cencage Learning. Available from [WWW] https://www-dawsonera-com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/readonline/9781408093207. Accessed April 2017

Clark, A. (2008) Listening as a way of life: Why and how we listen to young children, in Young Children’s Voices Network. London: NCB

Constable, K. (2014) Bringing the Forest School Approach to your Early Years Practice. Taylor and Francis

Early Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. The British Association of Early Childhood Education

Department for Education (DfE) (2014) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage.  Available from: [WWW] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596629/EYFS_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf. Accessed April 2017

Doherty, J. and Hughes, M. (2014) Child Development: Theory and Practice 0 – 11. (2^nd Ed.) Pearson Education M.U.A

Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s minds. Glasgos: Fontana/Collins

Ephgrave, A. (2015) The Nursery Year in Action: Following children’s interests throughout the year. London and New York: Routledge 

Fisher, J. (2009) ‘We used to play in Foundation, it was more funner’: investigating feelings about transition from Foundation Stage to Year 1, in Early Years International Journal of Research and Development. 29(2) pp. 131-145

Galton, M. (1987) Change and continuity in the primary school: The research evidence, in Oxford Review of Education. 13(1) p. 81-94

Goldschmied, E. and Jackson, S. (1994) People under three: Young Children in Daycare. London: Routledge

Goncu, A., Mistry, J. and Mosier, C. (2000) Cultural variations in the play of toddlers, in International Journal of Behavioural Development. 24(3) pp. 321-329

Goouch, K. (2008) Understanding playful pedagogies, play narratives and play spaces, in Early Years. 28(1) pp. 93-102

GOV.UK (2014) Children and Families Act. Available from [WWW] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/6/pdfs/ukpga_20140006_en.pdf. Accessed May 2017

GOV.UK (2017). Children’s Commissioner. Available from [WWW] http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/learn-more/child-participation. Accessed March 2017

Gray, C. and MacBlain, S. (2012) Learning Theories in Childhood. London: SAGE

Groos, K. (1901) The Play of Man. New York: D. Appleton & Company (Online). Available from [WWW] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002400037;view=1up;seq=413. Accessed April 2017

Haegele, J.A. and Hodge, S (2016) Disability Discourse: Overview and Critiques of the Medical and Social Models, in Quest 68(2) p. 193-206. Available from [WWW]  http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849. Accessed May 2017

Issacs, B. (2012) Understanding the Montessori Approach. Routledge Ltd

Kwon, Y-I. (2002) Changing Curriculum for Early Childhood Education in England, in Journal of Early Childhood Research and Practice. 4(2) Available from [WWW] http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n2/kwon.html  Accessed April 2017

Norwich, B. (2005). Inclusion: Is it a matter of evidence about what works or about values and rights?, in Education 3-13. 33(1) pp. 51-56. Available from [WWW]   http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.derby.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/03004270585200091?needAccess=true. Accessed May 2017

Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED), (2001). OFSTED’s nursery education. [online]. London. Available from [WWW] http://www.ofsted.gov.uk. Accessed May 2017

Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking, cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B (2006) The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project (Online). Available from [WWW] http://eppe.ioe.ac.uk/eppe/eppepdfs/RBTec1223sept0412.pdf. Accessed April 2017

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1992). Available from [WWW] https://353ld710iigr2n4po7k4kgvv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf. Accessed 05.03.17

… 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

The following is a piece written for the University of Derby by Linda Thornton

In this time of uncertainty in the field of early education and childcare -over funding issues, impending expansion of the free entitlement and the changing nature of children’s centres amongst other things- we must, as a profession, continue to reflect on our core principles and values. Whatever difficulties we encounter in our working lives our duty now, as always, must be to defend the right of babies and young children to quality provision. One of the ways in which we can do this is to re-visit the influences from at home and abroad which have enriched our early years provision in the UK over the past fifteen to twenty years. The first place I would return to for inspiration is, unsurprisingly, Reggio Emilia in Italy and I would begin by re-assessing the quality of the learning environment I was providing for the children in my care and their families.

We can start by thinking about the many different environments which we encounter on a daily basis; we know which we like and don’t like, which are beautiful and which are ugly and which ones make us feel valued as individuals. We need to stand back and reflect upon the environments which we provide for children and families – do they reflect our philosophy and values, are they comfortable but challenging and creative places, are they user-friendly and respectful, are they beautiful?

The influence of Reggio Emilia

The preschools and infant toddler centres of the city of Reggio Emilia in Northern Italy are renowned internationally for the emphasis they place on creating beautiful environments to support children’s emotional, cognitive and social development. They have a long history of valuing the importance of the environment, of surroundings and of the way spaces are conceptualised and created.

‘It has been said that the environment should act as a kind of aquarium which reflects the ideas, ethics, attitudes and life-style of the people who live in it.’

(Malaguzzi, 1998)

The story of the creation of environments for early childhood in Reggio Emilia goes back to the end of the Second World War. Mothers and fathers living in the small village of Villa Cella on the outskirts of the city sold an army tank, six horses and three trucks left by the German forces in order to build a preschool. They had the idea of a school which would be different from any other, believing that ‘if the children had legitimate rights, then they should also have opportunities to develop their intelligence and to be made ready for the success that would not, and should not, escape them’. (Malaguzzi, 1998)

Central to the Reggio Approach is a powerful image of the child. Children are viewed as strong, competent individuals with their own ideas and theories about the world around them. In Reggio they speak of the ‘challenging’ child, the ‘creative’ child, the child who is connected to others, the child who is an active citizen of the city. The environments of the preschools and infant toddler centres are designed, arranged, equipped and resourced to support this image of children. (more…)