A Comparison between EYFS, Montessori and Reggio Emilia Pedagogy This essay will discuss connections between the history of early years provision and Montessori education nowadays. Aspects of the early childhood curricula will be analysed in the light of theories of learning and pedagogy and connections will be made to Montessori practice. The Early Years Foundation Stage, Montessori and Reggio Emilia will be the basis of analysis and critique. The role of the Montessori teacher in providing a rich and balanced curriculum whilst following the child will be explored, whether in the classroom, outdoors or beyond the early years setting. The book “The Invention of Childhood” answers the question: “What is to be a child?” throughout Britain’s different historical eras (Cunningham, 2006). Children have been seen in different ways across time. In medieval times, influenced by the catholic religion, the child was seen as being born with the original sin. The 18th century was the time in which Locke lived, remembered for his liberal ideas about child education, suggested that poor children above the age of 3 to be put in working schools and trained to become industrious workers(Cunningham, 2006).  The age of five as appropriate for formal education was decided not because of developmental reasons but because demands for the industry needed to be met (Alexander, 2010). Factory owners needed their workers to have some education: the sooner these children were finished with school, the sooner they could work (Alexander, 2010). The division of classes is apparent into Victorian times and means different things for the fortunate; when childhood starts being depicted as the happiest time of life, as opposed to the poor children being used as slaves in factories (Cunningham, 2006). On the base of a commonly held belief that families should solve their problems without intervention from the outside, cases of violence against children led sometimes to tragic deaths (Bilston, 2019). Children’s Charter, 1889 was the first document that stated that authorities are allowed to interfere in the case of abuse against children (Bilston, 2019). Nursery education in the UK started at the beginning of the 20th century as a response to serious concerns for the wellbeing of children (Nutbrown et al, 2014). Fresh air, nutritious food and trusting relationships were the essential elements that underpinned the work of Robert Owen who founded a nursery for the worker’s children and the MacMillan sisters who founded a Nursery School providing open air school for young children in 1913 (Nutbrown et al, 2014). UN CRC enters into force in 1990 addressing children’s security, universal access to education and childcare (CRA, 2008). In the UK the Children’s Act 1989 stated the UN CRC underpinning principles (Macleod Brudenell & Kay, 2008). The Laming Report from 2003 noted there were significant failures in creating functional links between important agencies in an investigation into the death of Victoria Climbie (Macleod Brudenell & Kay, 2008). Following this event the green paper Every Child Matters  was written in 2003, which, as described in the introduction by the Chief Secretary, was “addressed in particular to those vital groups of staff and professionals who are committed to meeting children’s needs” (DFES, 2003:3). The paper sets out to achieve five essential outcomes such as: being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and economic well-being (DFES, 2003). In 2003 the “red book” Full Day Care National Standards for Under 8s Day Care and Childminding is adopted representing “a baseline of quality below which no provider may fall (DfES, 2003)”. The Early Years Foundation Stage Framework 2008 became mandatory for settings that worked with the Office for Standards in Education(Ofsted) and its aims were to be met through 4 core principles: the child is unique, forming ‘positive relationships’ within ‘enabling environments’ that promote children’s learning and development in ‘different ways and at different times’ (Palaiologou, 2013). In 2012, a revised framework was published and a few of the Learning Goals were renounced, however Brooker is critical about the interventionist role that the EYFS now has (Payler, et al 2014). Brooker states that the pressures placed on parents from underprivileged families threatened to lose their welfare benefits if their children fall behind the two-year old standards are the opposite of the principle of fairness, which is the exact principle this decision was portrayed to reflect (Payler, et al,  2014). It is up to practitioners to use their expertise and leadership qualities in order to truly help children and families, she argues, and feels optimistic about the workforce employed in the early years sector as the number of relevant qualifications are rising progressively (Payler, et al, 2014). The Montessori method started becoming popular in the UK around 1911 when her book The Montessori Method was published, followed by the organisation of a Montessori society in 1912 (Cohen,1974). Unlike many educational methods, Montessori quickly became internationally appealing (Hilton and Hirsch, 2000). By the time Montessori travelled to London, her lectures on education in Italy were already attended to by an international elite (Hilton and Hirsch, 2000). Her pedagogy was already either established in both Europe and outside the old continent and the blend of pragmatism and mysticism gained fervent supporters (Bruner in Hilton and Hirsch, 2000). Surely her charisma and magnetism were not the sole ingredients for her fame and, at the time where logic was still considered a rather masculine trait, Montessori had serious credentials that led to the conceptualisation of the widely acclaimed method (Hilton and Hirsch, 2000). Fuelled by a love for science, she became the first Italian female medic having to defy the prejudice present in the male-dominated domain (Standing, 1957). Having worked with children with learning difficulties in a Psychiatric Clinic, Montessori started gaining more interest in the lives of children and realised that these children were seeking stimulation and needed education as well as medical care (Kramer, 1976). She achieved impressive results inspired by Itard and Seguin regarding sensorial education. Montessori   established Casa Dei Bambini (Children’s House) in January 1907, for  3 to 6 year olds children in Rome, attended by children of working  mothers (Miller and Pound, 2011). The beginning of the method is closely linked with the political and historical context of Italy at that time. The successful method of education appealed to Mussolini himself rather because of the academic achievement, but the true ethos of Montessori’s education was misunderstood(Kramer, 1976). The fascist leader could have used an efficient method of education where the rates of literacy and numeracy were successfully met in order for the modern industrial state to strive but his idea of order and discipline couldn’t be further from what Montessori understood by these (Kramer, 1976).  The utilitarian fascist regime’s aim for education was to mould nationalistic obedient efficient workers that do not question the political status quo (Kramer, 1976). This was in direct conflict with what Montessori envisioned as an outcome of her pedagogy (Kramer, 1976). Montessori saw the child as a peaceful citizen of the world, an independent human being endowed with an inner force which manifests itself in the creative process through active discipline fostered by absolute freedom within boundaries (Montessori, 1988, 1989, 1966,2007). Cunningham(2006) argues that, consciously or not, people see childhood as preparation for becoming a functional adult. Childhood is regarded as a stage of life which should be protected and in which children are free to play and be happy. He also warns of the risk of over-protective attitudes “So fixated are we on giving our children a long or happy childhood that we downplay their abilities and their resilience (Cunningham, 2006: 245)”. Play versus work as opposites appear to be the theme of the last sentence.  Montessori(2012) seems to regard work and play in the life of a child as synonymous commenting that children regard play as work, whilst Bruce (2001, 2004) criticizes theories that divide work and play. Play is neither recreation nor a means to burn off energy, it is an important tool for learning which requires great energy and concentration (Bruce ,2001, 2004). Moyles(2015)  describes the process of defining play as catching bubbles: “play is a highly creative process, using body and mind; it is flexible and often free from externally imposed goals… Above all play offers children freedom, choice and control over some aspects of their lives, experiences they are rarely afforded in an inevitably adult led world. (Moyles, 2015: 17)”. But catching bubbles is a metaphor not only for the enjoyment of toying with the concept of play but it is an uncertain, ever changing concept that seems to be influenced by the historical, political, cultural and economic context (Rogers, 2010). Rogers (2010) recognises the challenges that occur in conceptualising play as a vehicle for learning and a terrain where learning can be assessed. She discusses how play can sometimes be seen through adult lenses and used in order to achieve curriculum requirements (Rogers, 2010). This poses questions about how much choice and autonomy children really exercise and how much the childhood experience is shaped by policy makers (Rogers, 2010). This instrumental view of play is seen in the EYFS 2012 which recommends that all areas of the curriculum should be delivered through planned, purposeful play (DfE, 2012). “Playing and exploring” is now one of the key characteristics of effective learning, alongside ‘active learning’ and ‘creating and thinking critically’ (Wood, 2013). The fact that play is now part of the legal framework and by virtue of this play is now exposed to regulations, managerial processes and target setting received considerable critique as the responsiveness to the child and attention to the complexities of play that is advocated in current research have been marginalised(Wood, 2013). The way society views the child is changing but some questions that Montessori raised seem to still have relevance today. Montessori(1997) warns about the fact that the child is only allowed to play a minute part in education and adults still get to decide what the child “needs”, ignoring the creative force within the child , her/his inner order that should in fact take the lead in the formation of a human being (Montessori, 1997). The EYFS is a framework with predetermined areas of learning which link to the national curriculum (Soler & Miller, 2003). These areas are organised as steps that lead achieving learning goals (Soler & Miller, 2003). There is an underlying view that children learn in a linear way, depending on their age and this learning can be assessed in an itemised way (Soler & Miller, 2003). Aynsley-Green (2019) criticises the British system of education as he thinks that children go into formal education too soon and rather than making schools ready to receive all children, there are pressures by school readiness placed on young children. He gives as a positive example the Finish system where all educators are able to build a respectable career where staff members don’t complain about not being able to afford the nursery they are working at for their own children (Aynsley-Green, 2019). The respect for the special rhythm of the child is addressed in the Cambridge Primary Review and it appears that children would benefit from enjoying informal education for a longer periods of their early childhood (Alexander, 2010).  Even though the EYFS is based on positive principles, some early learning goals are not considered age appropriate, for example, higher literacy rates are present in countries that have introduced formal literacy teaching from the age of 6 or 7 (Alexander, 2010). Moreover, emphasis on acquiring early literacy can actually have negative effects and create a life long adversity for reading(Alexander, 2010). Siraj-Blatford et al (2002) has identified some elements that contribute to the successful delivery of the EYFS through effective pedagogy. He considered pedagogy in the early years to be, as opposed to direct teaching, a set of techniques and strategies for instruction that will allow learning to take place within a prepared, stimulating environment (Siraj-Blatchford, et al 2002). He coins the term sustained shared thinking, an interaction through which two or more people construct knowledge through dialogue, typically involving open ended questions (Siraj-Blatchford, et al 2002). EYFS (2018) has included in their guidelines the use of open-ended questions in order to support the ‘Creative and Thinking Critically’ characteristic of effective learning. Assessing all children against the same learning goals could induce the idea that quality education refers to the number of goals obtained, rather than being regarded as a continuous process (Macleod Brudenell & Kay, 2008). However, the EYFS (DfE, 2012) does specify that children develop and learn in different ways and at different rates. At first sight, the fact that the EYFS has a legal status that is compulsory to all settings may seem that it could disturb the long established alternative curriculums, such as Montessori (Macleod-Brudenell & Kay, 2008). On a closer look, though, the EYFS could be used as a valuable resource and easily imbedded in an internal policy.  As it appears in ‘Guide to the Early Years Foundation Stage in Montessori Settings’, “The EYFS expresses… principles in terms with which Montessorians are very familiar: that each child is unique; that positive relationships form the basis for personal respect supporting learning; that the learning environment has a key role in extending learning and development, and that children learn and develop in different ways and at different rates ”(Bradley, 2008, in MSN, 2008:3). According to Abu (2012) some practitioners struggle to reach the learning goals fearing that that unless they follow mainly the EYFS with just a few elements of Montessori their schools are at risk of closing. This contrasts with Nutbrown (2012: 29-30) who finds that any initiatives of moving to a single qualification plan should be abandoned as most Montessori settings gained either Good or Outstanding Ofsted ratings. However some Montessorians openly welcome the EYFS expressing the congruity of the Montessori principles with the EYFS (Marcus, 2008). EYFS is regarded as a welcomed common language that can be used amongst professionals (Marcus, 2008). EYFS is informed largely by developmental theories stressing the importance of acquiring academic skills in order to prepare the child in becoming a productive citizen (Palaiologou, 2016: 61-62). This ethos seems to contrast with the UNCRC, as in 2006, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child published an important General Comment called ‘Implementing child rights in early childhood’ which made it clear that children’s rights must be safeguarded from before birth (Payler, et al, 2014). This was followed by another important General Comment in 2013 stating that children’s right to play in early childhood must not be influenced by academic pressures(Payler et al, 2014). Practitioners are advised to use this new tool in making sure that children’s right to play is defended (Payler et al, 2014). Montessori practitioners support children's independence trusting children’s capacity of constructing themselves through their choices (Montessori, 2012). The following part of the essay will look at how the Montessori philosophy matches various developmental theories. In order for the child to be able to become independent, Montessori maintains that the child needs to benefit from unconditional understanding and prompt responses to meet his/her needs (Montessori, 1956). In terms of the interaction style that children could be best supported by, Montessori’s descriptions of the interactions mirror the secure attachment style (Stoll Lillard, 2007). According to attachment theory, children need a close trustworthy adult which will play the role of a secure base from which to safely explore their environment (Bowlby,1969). The attachment between primary carer/s with the child leads to the development of the internal working model which influences the future relationships of the child with the others (Bowlby, 1969). One of the most remarkable contributions that Montessori made in our understanding of how children learn was the theorising of the sensitive periods (Bruce, 2005). These are special periods of time when children have the optimal developmental inclination to learn specific things, to develop uniquely human characteristics (Montessori, 2012). Neuroscience confirms these empirical observations. Even though the brain is malleable throughout life “ there are critical or sensitive periods when neural pathways proliferate, and it is vital that during these periods children experience an optimal input of sensory, physical, social and emotional nature in order that the pathways are used and not lost. Unused pathways wither and die (Moyles, 2015: 34)”.  Montessori developed a specific apparatus that educates the senses and has graded them by level of difficulty, using a prescribed way and order of presenting them (Montessori, 1988 b). This is an area that has created controversy, starting with the arrival of Montessori method in the UK when Froebelian educationalist deployed the fact that the materials are not open-end and not inviting for imaginative play (Hilton and Hirsch, 2000). This pedagogical tool has specific aims. Most materials have an in-build control-of -error which gives the material an auto-didactic quality (Montessori, 1988). Its purpose is to add challenge to the activity in a way that through repetition the child doesn’t simply rehearse a skill but also works toward refinement of perception and perfects her/his approach (Stoll Lillard, 2007). Another remarkable pedagogical strategy is the concept of freedom within boundaries (Standing, 1957). Erikson considered the second stage of psycho-social development, autonomy vs shame and doubt, to have as main conflict the degree to which the child is allowed to be assertive and do what she/he chooses and the limitation that adults and society places on this (Erikson, in Stevens, 1983). Feelings of shame can have a corrosive effect on the child which can be carried into adulthood but also self-awareness within a social context is necessary (Stevens, 1983).The right balance can be obtained when the child is willing to have a go risking failure but also be able to exercise self-restrained (Stevens, 1983). Montessori (1988 a) acknowledged this drive for independency and she called horme. It manifests at the beginning of life as an unconscious force which is gradually replaced by the conscious will (Montessori, 1988a). The will is not innate but trained by allowing freedom of choice within sensible boundaries (Montessori, 1988b). Being allowed to exercise freedom within boundaries leads to high levels of self-regulation and even moral awareness (Dowling, 2014). Dowling (2014) points out that although coercing children into “good” behaviour could appear to work, this “achievement ” has very little to do with sound moral development which must derive from the child’s inner motives. Ultimately, the “good” behaviour has true value if the child truly understands her/his motives for acting in a particular way rather than simply by following instructions (Dowling, 2014). The child is free to choose activities in the environment as long as they don’t disturb other children that are working or mistreat the materials (Standing, 1957). The work cycle, an interval of time within which children freely explore the environment uninterrupted is another specific pedagogical tool that allows children to develop independence (Montessori, 1989). The work cycle is comprised by cycles of activity where the child selects the activity, uses is purposefully then puts it back ready for the other child (Montessori, 1989). This particular frame fosters a sense of responsibility and empathy which in Rogers’(1969) view is an important element in learning efficiently. He states: “When he chooses his own directions, helps to discover his own learning resources, formulates his own problems, decides his own course of action, lives with the consequences of each of these choices, then significant learning is maximised(Rogers, 1969:162)” . Montessori (1988, b) was convinced that children need hands on experiences in order to think and create: “the human hand, so delicate and so complicated, not only allows the mind to reveal itself but it enables the whole being to enter in a special relationship with his environment...under the guidance of his intellect transforms this environment and thus enable his mission in the world (Montessori, 1966: 81)”. This is also a sentence that reveals Montessori’s understanding that human beings are living in an ever changing world where creativity is needed for not only the development of the child but for the progressive development of humanity. Piaget articulated a developmental theory where the child needs to reach a certain stage of development in order to acquire certain knowledge (Piaget in McLeod, 2018). He also recognised the role of hands on experience in the sensori-motor stage(0-2) and pre-operational stage (2-7) to allow exploration and discovery and to have first-hand experiences in order to later develop abstract thinking (Macleod Brudenell & Kay, 2008). The child learns through schema, a pattern of repeatable actions that lead to early categories and then to logic classification (Piaget in Bruce, 2011). In order to support developing skills and schemas through manipulation, the curriculum offers a rich variety of activities, from activities to everyday living, sensorial to numeracy which could be repeated in order to support emerging skills and having mastered them they can be transferred across other areas of the curriculum (Stoll Lillard, 2007). Bruner (1960) considered transferability of skills the main characteristic to measure effective learning. He developed the concept of a spiral curriculum which had as main underpinning characteristics the following: topics are revisited, there are increasing levels of difficulty, new learning is related to previous learning and the student competence increases(Harden, 1999). All these aspects are encountered in the delivery of the Montessori curriculum. The curriculum is visibly structured orderly on shelves which makes it easy to navigate and subject areas which have the purpose of scaffolding skills or knowledge that are transferable across the areas (Stoll Lilllard, 2007). The sensorial area of the curriculum helps the children to order their impressions and refine their perception (Montessori, 1988 b).  Montessori is not claiming that the sensorial materials educate the child’s senses as the child is a natural observer of her/his environment and is bound to extract knowledge from her/his observations outside the specific presentations(Montessori, 1988) The materials, having a specific design that isolate a main characteristic which is relevant to a specific sense(isolation of stimuli) are named materialised abstractions: “Abstract ideas are synthetic concepts of the mind which, independent of actual objects, draw some common qualities from them … ‘weight’ for example is an abstraction here [...] does not exist by itself but only in heavy objects (Montessori: 1988 b : 177)”. The apparatus helps with classifying these concepts which are formed by using the terminology presented through the three period lessons (Montessori, 1988 a,  1988b) This links to Piaget’s second stage of development: the pre-operational stage when children start using words as symbols(Macleod Brudenell & Kay, 2008). Montessori believed that the human mind is by nature mathematical and compares it to the warp upon which the human mind weaves her/his experiences, enriching the ever growing tapestry (Montessori, 1988 a). In order to illustrate this, using another metaphor in Piaget’s terms, Bruce states: “Schemas are part of human development, from birth to death, but they are not in a constant state. They are always adjusting and changing in the light of experience. This is why they are such a powerful learning mechanism (Bruce, 2005:73)”. Vertical grouping is a characteristic of a typical Montessori classroom meaning that children of different ages are mixed in a classroom (Montessori, 1988a). The purpose of this is that children are likely to observe other children, learn from each other and create a positive intergenerational atmosphere (Montessori, 1988 a). This feature creates a plenitude of peer-to-peer learning and tutoring opportunities and helps both  the young, as she/he can assimilate knowledge and have a sense of admiration and camaraderie, and also the more able peer who solidifies her/his knowledge by teaching and has an opportunity to view her/himself in positive terms(Montessori, 1988a, 1998b). This links with Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal development which is the distance from what a child can do independently and what the child can’t perform without the help of a more able peer (Vygotsky, 1978). This is a bridge that can be crossed over easily and respectfully; the young can get the help from the older children in a mixed aged group (Stoll Lillard, 2007). In order to support children in their play, Montessori teachers need to be skilled observers and support the child in their development which means keeping in mind the non interfering principle and preparing the environment to meet and revive the ever changing interests of children(Montessori, 1988; Standing, 1957). Wood (2013) advises for flexibility and focus on the child’s process rather than an end goal; planning should inform potential learning outcomes. Attention should be especially paid to those particular learning opportunities that are outside the box (Wood, 2013). With regards to the use of imagination there has been a lot of controversy when understanding the Montessori approach. She encourages teachers to use storytelling in order to engage the child’s imagination, as this has an integrative power (Montessori, 2012). She declares: ”I will not extinguish any fire, any greatness, any enthusiasm. On the contrary, I wish to illuminate the whole of instruction so that every little particle of knowledge is received with understanding and enthusiasm (Montessori, 2012: 191)”. The way she describes the use of imagination is in a sense close to inventiveness and innovation, the capacity of the human mind to create something novel(Montessori, 1989 b). But this faculty doesn’t develop spontaneously and it is connected to the experiences we weave onto the warp of the mathematical mind (Montessori,1988 a). “Imagination can have only a sensory basis. [...]which helps us to collect from the external world the material for the imagination [...]Imaginative creation[...]is a construction firmly allied to reality; and the more it holds fast on the forms of the external created world, the loftier will  the value of its internal creation be(Montessori in Standing, 1957:339.)” Innovative play occurs when the child has mastered concepts and skills, and introduces variations (Elkind, 2007). As educators the task that we are really confronted with is that we now have to prepare children for jobs that don’t even exist yet (Beloglovsky & Daly, 2015). The following quote illustrates a solution for this demand: “What is needed for future survival is innovative thinking. (Children) need to learn not simply how to accommodate to the future but how to shape it. If one of the challenges of education is to prepare children for a fast-changing world, then teaching children how to think creatively becomes a clear need (Fisher, R, 2014:24)”. Even though there are evident benefits from following the Montessori method, some educators felt that they can take a leaf out of other educational methods to compliment the orderly, sequential energy that Montessori offers with a bit more open ended, serendipitous characteristics (MacDonald, 2004). They found this in the Reggio Emilia approach (MacDonald, 2004). Unlike the fixed curriculum that Montessori provides, Reggio Emilia has a flexible curriculum, comprised of projects informed by the interests of the children (Ang, 2013). The aims are loose and activity becomes directed by the children (Edwards, et al 2012). Nutbrown (2001) describes the situations for learning in Reggio Emilia’s as a palette of opportunities starting from the primary colours represented by the historical and cultural context and exploring a myriads of hues represented by the interactions with space, time, materials and people. These elements are combining and have as overarching aim enabling children to be and to become citizens who understand the principles of democracy and who are and will become active participants in their community (Abbot and Nutbrown, 2001). Unlike other curricula, Reggio Emilia borrows its name, not from a government statutory framework or the founding person, such as Montessori but from the region it was founded within. This happens despite the fact that Loris Malaguzzi has received the recognition of being the founding father of the method (Cox, 2014). Malaguzzi speaks about a sense of new hope and a wave of enthusiasm and restoration of life equal in strength to the destructive powers of war that led the people of Reggio Emilia to rethink and innovate education for young children(Moss, et al 2016). Maintaining a disposition of curiosity, the learning community of Reggio Emilia have been gathering inspiration from a myriad of sources and as a result, their philosophy is an eclectic mixture of ideas (Thornton and Burton, 2009). Montessori, Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, Froebel and Bronfenbrenner are only a few of the thinkers that have influenced this approach which is nowadays a widely acclaimed (Ang, 2013). After the tragedy of war, parents, especially mothers who were trying to take up space and play a more active political role in their community, started setting the basis of a new kind of early years care and education which was to be independent from the monopoly of the Catholic Church and have an inclusive, democratic ethos (Cagliari, et al 2015). Loris Malaguzzi, who started teaching at the age of 18 and continued to teach during the war as well, being considered unfit to go to war mostly due to a medical condition, already despised the traditional teaching system, gets really interested in these independent organisations(Cagliari, et al 2015). Indeed, Malaguzzi shaped a lot of the philosophy of the Reggio Emilia’s schools through his education, research and richness of experiences, through the relationships with all the stakeholders and nevertheless his eclectic and innovative intellectual capacity (Cagliari, et al  2015). Moss describes the schools of Reggio Emilia to be Malaguzzi’s books (Cagliari, et al, 2015).Perhaps, Malaguzzi himself would have disagreed, as he states that he never believed a story belongs to one person only(Cagliari, et al, 2015). Even though this method has gained international recognition, the method was not replicated in other places, as have other pedagogical approaches. One could argue that it is the flexible curriculum (Edwards, et al 2012) and that it is because it derives from the questions raised by children. Nutbrown, however, states that the dream that parents had for their children to grow in a democratic society, that they would never again experience the tragedy of war or political regimes such as fascism, is seen as the main goal of the method, and it is specifically relevant to the community of Reggio Emilia (Abbott and Nutbrown, 2001). Concerned with the issue of democracy in the UK, Siraj-Blatchford, et al. (1995) states that social aims are translated into curriculum aims and it is of paramount importance  that we define what kind of future society we have in mind and that we educate children to be participant democrats. In order to optimise the ability for future adults to be active participants in tomorrow’s society children need to learn how to listen as well as to talk, take turns, allow points of view to develop through dialogue rather than regurgitated information (Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford, 1995).  Children learn personal politics through the micro-system of everyday life and it is important to create a listening climate where individuals (both teachers and students) are supported by a shared democratic ethos, leading to feelings of trust and belonging; where tasks and questions are open rather than closed (Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford,1995). Democracy has not got a static meaning and this changes and grows over time from the engagement of society and more and more pluralistic views emerge from this (Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford,1995). Democracy should be viewed as an ideal that is always worth going towards (Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford,1995). Certainly, the principles of Reggio Emilia are designed to create and maintain this kind of society. Children are seen as the protagonists, as capable ambitious learners that will construct meaning, have their own ideas, will make their own discoveries, change their points of view, become attached to one form of expression or another and are in a continuous process of transformation (Malaguzzi, in Edwards, et al 2012) The child as a collaborator is a principle that has considerable pedagogical implications (Edwards, et al, 1998). The activities are planned as group activities and it contrasts strongly with the Montessori method. Even though the vertical grouping fosters spontaneous peer-to-peer tutoring, lessons are not generally planed for groups. Montessori encouraged individual children to follow their interest by working with a variety of graded materials going from one level of complexity to the next and minimised group activity as she didn’t want a whole group to follow a single set of instructions (Lee Gutek, 2004). In the Reggio method group learning is encouraged particularly because it’s unique learning opportunities and also because relationships are highly valued. As Nutbrown observes working and being together is a defining aspect of Reggio Emilia(Abbott and Nutbrown, 2001). There is a strong emphasis on relationships, communication and interactions as a means to co-construct meaning (Edwards, et al 2012). In children’s voices, group learning is beneficial because: “your brain works better... your ideas, when you say them out loud ...keep coming together, when all the ideas come together you get a gigantic idea” and “it’s easier to learn together when you choose your friends. You choose them because of what they know, too. We teach each other and we learn from each other (Anna, in Giudici, et al, 2001: 323)”.   Conflicts that arise are seen as an opportunity for children to find ways to resolve problems (Edwards, et al 2012). Teachers are advised to wait for the children to act on and resolve it but at the same time intervening sensitively where appropriate (Edwards, et al 2012). The child as communicator is a unique characteristic of this pedagogy ( Cadwell, 2003) Considered a pedagogy of listening par excellence, the community of Reggio Emilia, whether in the classroom or outside of the educational setting invites children to express themselves using a wide range of languages of expression(Ang, 2013). Malaguzzi wrote a poem that speaks about the hundred languages of the children celebrating the capacity of the child to express her/himself in a myriad of ways and was critical of the mainstream education which stifles this creative potential(Edwards, et al 2012). The documentation is communication(Cadwell, 2003). It opposes the Montessori’s ethos for accuracy, and it becomes yet another story narrated by many voices (Dahlberg, et al 2013). Teachers discuss observations of the children and of their own pegagogy which gives room for reflection and heightens their pedagogical awareness (Dahlberg, et al 2013). It can take many forms, from written narratives, audio recordings, photographs to exhibitions (Davoli, et al 2000). Children self-assess their work and by virtue of the way the result of their work is carefully being displayed, it sends the child a message about the value the adults around them places on their creative endeavours (Katz, in Edwards et al, 2012). Documentation is really a means to capture the voice of the child and make it visible, celebrating it (Davoli, et al 2000). Educators publish and display the innocent yet wise musings of children such as these: “Trees grow by themselves because they want to be born by themselves, because they don’t want to have any owner(Davoli, et al: 89)”. The teacher is regarded as a researcher (Cadwell, 2003). The schools of Reggio Emilia generate their own research, where theories are there as a partner in dialogue, the child remains a unique individual that may confirm or contradict certain theories. Moss describes this process as research from within (Cagliari, et al 2015). This is reminiscent of Montessori’s words: “Here is the new path! No longer is it for the professor to apply psychology to the childhood, but it is for the children themselves to reveal their psychology to those who study them. (Montessori, 1988a: 5)” The teacher is also seen as an indefatigable learner and continuous professional development is a must (Thornton & Brunton, 2009). The teacher as partner, nurturer and guide – is a loose definition of the complex role that the teacher plays in a Reggio Emilia school (Cadwell, 2003). Malaguzzi had an avuncular tone when speaking of the role of the teachers, mentioning the true enjoyment that the adult feels in the presence of a child, of absolute presence, being genuinely interested in all children’s endeavours and discoveries (Malaguzzi, 1994). He envisioned the same rich image of the teacher as he did of the child but he was also aware of the difficulties of the role (Edwards, et al 2012). One of the characteristics of the Reggio is that teachers usually work in pairs in the classroom and they liaise with specialist teachers (the atelierista and the pedagogista) in order to deliver a rich curriculum (Edwards, et al 2012). This was a conscious departure from the traditional solitary position allowing for mutual support through collegial work (Edwards et al 2012). The atelierista is aware that creativity is permeating all aspects of learning and would often integrate creative expression with scientific exploration (Edwards, et al 2012). Vea Vechi strongly believes that creativity is part of the make-up of every child and that they are constructing their own theories (Edwards, et al, 2012). She describes a curious disposition and a readiness to be surprised by children’s innovative minds and thinks adult theories will never suffice in the pursuit of comprehending children (Edwards, et al, 2012). Another unique role that the educators of Reggio have taken is that of activists for children’s rights in the classroom and beyond (Edwards, et al 2012). The environment is seen as the third in the Reggio approach (Cadwell, 2013). The large spaces are inviting and rich in sensorial stimulation (Cadwell, 2003). These are aspects shared by the Montessori classroom too (Standing, 1957). Vechi talks about an aesthetic dimension as well but this does not stem simply because of beauty as a pleasant aspect but rather from an attitude of care, curiosity and wonder (Vechi, 2000). Malaguzzi describes the unique educational opportunity between the child and the beauty in the environment to be situated in an aesthetic vibration (Vechi, 2000). Montessori was well aware of the enticing aspect of beautiful materials and spoke about these mini invitations as the voices that call the child (Montessori, 1988 b). Space intertwines with time, allowing children and teachers to be active, to think or to simply be (Thornton & Brunton, 2009). In her visit to Reggio Emilia, Nutbrown muses over the fact that teachers are working a 36 hour program, out of which they spend 6 hours for planning, reflecting together, and wonders what a difference that would make for educators elsewhere ( Abbott and Nutbrown, 2001). The parent is valued as an equal partner and has lots of opportunities to engage with the child’s learning (Cadwell, 2013). Malaguzzi emphasised the role of the teacher being also of educating the parent about why children benefit strongly from certain experiences and made to feel that they are really part of the child’s journey (Malaguzzi, 1994). Documentation becomes an important tool for allowing the parent to understand the child’s experience, especially in the infancy when the child is not yet able to verbally articulate what her/ his experience was. (Gandini and Edwards, 2001). Witnessing the care with which their child was listened to creates a sense of trust and belonging for the parent and strengthens the partnership between teacher and parents (Gandini and Edwards, 2001). It appears that, whichever curriculum of framework educators use, practice is rooted in the historical background, facilitated or restrained by legal policies but is mainly defined by the educators themselves. It is important to interpret philosophies or requirements in a modern context, however keeping in mind the rights of the child and approaching her/him with respect. Looking at the three curriculums and how they came to the form they are today, it is easy to see that some principles stand the test of time and are universally applicable, other ideas have been challenges. The reflective attitude seems to also ground itself in certainties. List of References Abu, T. (2012) Montessori Education in nurseries in England: Two case studies. B.A(Ed) MEd (Hons) Mont. Int Dip. Bangor University, Wales. Abbott, L., Nutbrown, C.(2001) Experiencing Reggio Emilia: Implications for pre-school provision Open University Press: Buckingham; Philadelphia Alexander R. (ed) (2010) Children, their World, their Education – Chapter 11  Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review.  Abingdon: Routledge Aynsley-Green, A. (2019). The British Betrayal of Childhood. New York: Routeledge Ang, L (ed.) 2013, The Early Years Curriculum : The UK Context and Beyond, Routledge, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. .https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/londonmet/reader.action?docID=1480762&ppg=115 [16 May 2019] Beloglovsky, M. & Daly, L. (2015) Loose Parts: Inspiring Play in Young Children USA: Redleaf Press Bilston, B. (2019). A history of child protection. [online] OpenLearn. Available at: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/childhood-youth/working-young-people/history-child-protection (Accessed 28/01/2019). Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books. Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. New York: Vintage books. Bruce, T. (2014) Developing Learning in Early Childhood London: Sage Bruce, T (2005) Early Childhood Education 3rd Edition London: Hodder Education Bruce, T. (2001) Learning through Play: Babies, Toddlers and the Foundation Years London: Hodder Education Cadwell, B,C. ( 2003) The Reggio Approach, Bringing Learning to Life New York: Teachers College Press Cagliari, P., Castagnetti, M., Giudici, C., Rinaldi, C., Vecchi, V., Moss, P(2015) Loris Malaguzzi and the Schools of Reggio Emilia : A Selection of his writings and Speeches, 1945-1993 London and New York: Routledge Children’s Rights Alliance (CRA), 2008 Towards a UN Convention on the Rights of the Child available from: https://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/information_sheets/files/AllianceInfoHistoryUNCRC_0.pdf  (date accessed 15/03/2019) Cohen, S. (1974). The Montessori Movement in England, 1911–19521. History of Education, 3(1), pp.51-67.[online] available from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0046760740030104 (accessed on 10/05/2019) Cox, J. (2013) The Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education in  Ang, L (ed.), The Early Years Curriculum : The Uk Context and Beyond, Routledge, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central.https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/londonmet/reader.action?docID=1480762&ppg=115  (accessed on 1/04/ 2019) Cunningham, H. (2006) The Invention of Childhood London: BBC Books Department For Education (DfE) (2017) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage London. Department For Education (DFE-00169-2017) Available at:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596629/EYFS_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf (Accessed: 20/11/2018) DFES (2003) Every Child Matters: Presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury by Command of Her Majesty, September 2003  London: The Stationery Office[online]available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272064/5860.pdf (date accessed :15/05/2019) Department for Education and Science (DES) (1972) Education: A Framework for Expansion (1972) Cmnd5174 London : HMSO Dahlberg, G, Moss, P, & Pence, A. ( 2013)  Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care : Languages of Evaluation Routledge, London.(online) Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/londonmet/reader.action?docID=3061468&ppg=191 (accessed on 16/05/2019). Davoli, M., Ferri, C. and The Children of Reggio (2000). Reggio Tutta: A Guide to the City by the Children. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Municipality of Reggio Emilia. Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). (2018). [ebook] London: Department for Education. Available at: https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2012/03/Development-Matters-FINAL-PRINT-AMENDED.pdf (accessed on 15/05/2019). Dowling, M. (2014) Young Children's Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 4th Edition, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Edward, L. & Gandini, L. & Forman, G. ( 2012 3rd ed ) The Hundred Languages of Children, United States of America Elking, D. (2007) The Power of Play Philadelphia: Da Capo Lifelong Books Fisher R. (2014) Teaching children to think. Oxford: Oxford University Press Gandini, L and Edwards, C.P., (2001) Bambini Teachers College Columbia University: New York Giudici, C., Krechevsky, M. and Rinaldi, C. (2001). Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners. Reggio Emilia; Cambridge: Reggio Children; The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Harden R.M.(1999) What is a spiral curriculum?, Medical Teacher, 21:2, 141-143 [online] available at : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01421599979752 accessed on 15/05/2019 Hilton, P. and Hirsch, M. (2019). Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress 1790-1930. London: Longman: Pierson Education. Kramer, R. (1976) Maria Montessori: A Biography, United Kingdom: Montessori International Publishing Limited Lee Gutek, G. (2004). The Montessori Method: The Origins of an Educational Innovation. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. McLeod, S. A. (2018). Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Jean-Piaget.pdf. "[online] accesed on 05/05/2019 Macleod-Brudenell, I. &  Kay, J (2008, 2nd Ed) Advanced Early Years for Foundation Degrees & Level 4/5, Harlow: Heinemann   MacDonald, B. (2004). Our Montessori Journey with Reggio: Living with Paradox and Dualities. Innovations in Early Education: The International Reggio Exchange, Spring 2004, v.11, n.2  [online]Available at: http://www.communityplaythings.com/resources/articles/2009/our-montessori-journey-with-reggio-living-with-paradox-and-dualties  [Accessed 16 May 2019]. Malaguzzi, L. (1994) Your Image of the Child: Where Teaching Begins, Exchange 3/94.   Marcus, L. (2008). Montessori guides users to EYFS. Nursery World, [online] pp. p6-6. 1/3p. Available at: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=a3189a55-869b-4697-ad7b-2983fc817a98%40sessionmgr4006  (Accessed 28/01/2019). Miller, L. & Pound, L. (2011) Theories and Approaches to Learning in the Early Years, SAGE Publication Ltd Montessori, M. (1956). The Child in the Family. New York: Avon. Montessori, M. (1966) The Secret of Childhood, New York: Ballantine Montessori, M. (1988 a) The Absorbent Mind Oxford: Clio Press Montessori, M. (1988 b) The Discovery of the Child Oxford: Clio Press Montessori, M. (1989 a). The Child, Society and the World: Unpublished Speeches and Writings. Oxford: Clio. Montessori, M. (1989 b). To Educate the Human Potential. Oxford: Clio. Montessori, M. (1997). Basic Ideas of Montessori's Educational Theory: Extracts From Maria Montessori's Writings and Teachings. Oxford: Clio Press: The Clio Montessori Series. Montessori, M. (2012, 3rd Ed.) The 1946 London Lectures, Amsterdam: Montessori-Pierson Publishing Co Montessori Schools Association (MSA) (2012, 2nd Ed.) Guide to the Early Years Foundation Stage in Montessori settings, London: Montessori St. Nicholas Charity. Moyles, J (2015) The Excellence of Play 4th Edition Open University Press:Berkshire England Nutbrown, C. (2012). The Independent Review of Early Education and Childcare Qualifications. 1st ed. [ebook] Cheshire: DFE. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175463/Nutbrown-Review.pdf (Accessed 28/01/ 2019). Nutbrown C. and Clough P. (2014 2nd Ed) Early Childhood Education. London: Sage Palaiologou I. (2013) The Early Years Foundation Stage: Theory and Practice London: Sage Payler, J., Georgeson, J. and Moyles, J. R. (2014) Early Years Foundations : Critical Issues. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=697592&site=ehost-live (Accessed: 27 /01/2019). Roger, S. (1969). Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early Childhood Education : Concepts, Contexts and Cultures. London: Routledge. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company Soler, J. & Miller, L. (2003) The Struggle for Early Childhood Curricula: A comparison of the English Foundation Stage Curriculum, Te Wha ̈riki and Reggio Emilia, International Journal of Early Years Education, 11:1, 57-68 online, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966976032000066091 (accessed on 17/05/2019) Stoll Lillard, A. (2007). Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Siraj-Blatchford, J. and Siraj-Blatchford, I.(1995)  Educating the Whole Child : cross curricular skills, themes and dimensions Open University Press: Buckingham; Philadelphia Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPEY) DfES Research Report 365. HMSO London: Queen’s Printer. Stevens, R. (1983) Erik Erikson Milton Keynes: Open University Press Thornton, L. & Brunton, P. (2009  2nd  ed) Understanding the Reggio Approach, Early Years Education in Practice, Published in USA and Canada: Routledge Vecchi, V (2010) Art and Creativity in Reggio Emilia : Exploring the Role and Potential of Ateliers in Early Childhood Education, Routledge, London. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [16 May 2019] .available from  https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/londonmet/reader.action?docID=496393&ppg=31 Wood, E. (2013). Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum. 3rd ed. London: Sage. Page22 Page22Pedagogy Essay Roxana Haloiu18024702