Currently there is little point in trying to make sense of early years policy, so I thought it best to leave it be and think about a different but not unrelated area. Please bear in mind the following is slightly tongue in cheek…
Over the past few months there has been some debate between research driven practice and non-evidence-based approaches resulting in a polarisation of opinion that I am not sure is helpful for developing daily practice. Research undeniably has an important place in what we do every day; where would we be without Vygotsky, Piaget and Bruner amongst the many others who help us understand what makes children tick? Some research studies are more rigorously evaluated than others, they use different controls and analysis, but every study inevitably has 'ifs' and 'buts', resulting in generalisations. If we place too much emphasis on research alone it can restrict our focus and lead to a narrowing of practice. The research itself may be quite neutral, but its application, without considering context, can lead to a belief that there is a 'right way'. It can also be focused on particular political priorities.
I worry about ‘chain-mentality’, sometimes seen in the big multi academy trusts or groups of nurseries that prescribe a particular approach or in the worst cases a demand for a dogged adherence to a particular methodology and practice. You could call this the ‘McDonalds factor’ where they all literally look the same and teach to centrally devised plans whether this be Art, Music or Maths, completely missing the fact that children are individuals.
On the other side is what has been described as ‘influencer-informed practice’. This could be when an emotively packaged, charismatic set of well-marketed ideas becomes something to follow, although there is not necessarily tangible evidence to support it. This can fall into the same trap as research, but without the empiricism and with more emotional investment. It runs the risk of becoming ‘evangelical practice’, with unbelievers vilified because they dare to introduce a piece of yellow Duplo. It is again essentially practice with limited reflection and risks ignoring children’s (and adults’) diversity.
For me the highest quality practice is always founded in relationships. I love the variety of approaches of maverick settings and schools who do things their way and change it depending on the circumstances and children. It brings colour and depth and draws upon the skills of the staff, letting them lead through their strengths. It allows for individualism and tailors practice to meet the range of needs, experiences and backgrounds that walk through our doors each morning. It also provides a range of approaches that can act as models for less experienced practitioners. In short, it cherry picks and I see nothing wrong with borrowing good ideas. Interestingly, these settings are often the ones that later become the models that others follow.
Knowledge is undoubtably important, but it is experience that puts it into practice. If there is only one right way, it inevitably restricts opportunity. I think a significant challenge of management is to allow others to do things differently. I try to keep alive in myself what I want for children, an enquiring mind. So, be cautious of any approach that denies adaptation, be open to the ideas of others and understand that it may not be 'your' way, but it might not be worse (it could even be better). In short, make yourself the research project.
