When did Early Years turn beige?

Look at any social media post featuring a typical nursery environment right now. The picture is the same – cable reels of varying sizes, hessian-backed display boards with trailing artificial ivy and fairy lights, upturned apple crates, wooden pallets in various formats, beige furniture and resources set against plain white walls. Are these nursery environments set up to maximise children’s learning potential, or are some providers jumping on current ‘trends’ and actually limiting the learning experiences we offer children? How does this room design maximise children’s learning, and support the setting’s curriculum and pedagogy?

A host of research and pedagogical studies over the years have concluded that too much colour and sensory overload have a detrimental effect on children’s concentration levels, their ability to focus, and their emotional wellbeing. We understand this. However, why has there been a drastic leap to blandness, minimal resources and a ‘stripped back’, bare environment? In the last year, we have visited

settings and are concerned that, seemingly in response to current trends, some nursery environments have been redesigned to become stark and uninspiring. Who has started this notion, and on what pedagogical principles are these design ideas based on? Has anyone considered what these environments are like for a baby, toddler, or very young child? Where is the choice, variety, and sensory stimulation? And we don’t mean loads of overpowering bright colours on the walls.

Many images of newly refurbished nurseries now seem to have minimal resources. They appear more like show homes where everything seems to be put on display to be looked at and admired, rather than played with and explored. Some environments now resemble the familiar blue and yellow, Swedish, well-known flat-pack furniture shop, rather than a creative, inspiring, and enticing early years environment. What has happened to the importance of providing an ‘enabling environment?’ Good practice tells us that when babies and children feel emotionally secure, they will play and explore more freely. But in some of the environments we see regularly, there is hardly anything for children to play with, let alone explore.

Where is the choice and variation in the range of resources available? A few wooden blocks displayed creatively on a shelf out of children’s reach look attractive, but this does not support a child’s freedom of choice, or ability to choose their own play materials. Some of them are stored so high, they don’t even catch the eye of a baby or toddler. A lack of choice and variation hinders a young child’s ability to make connections in their learning and to extend their play and creativity. For example, if a child is playing creatively with one resource, how easily and readily can they see what else is available to enrich their play and extend their learning potential. One thing that often strikes us is the significant lack of resources. Where has all the choice and richness in variety gone? What happens to the child who attends nursery all day, every day – where is the variety for him and provision of fresh, new experiences? Once again, aesthetics appears to outweigh the significance and importance of learning.

And who’s idea was it that everything should be beige? Again, we understand that an environment rich in bright colours can be overpowering. But, in our view, some settings have taken this to the extreme. Place yourself at a baby or child’s eye level…. All they can see is beige. Where are the pockets of rich colour to capture the eye and draw attention to what is available? Where are the colours to support children’s calmness and emotional wellbeing? These factors often seem to get forgotten. Why does everything seem so bland? How do we now support a young child’s development of colour recognition when everything around them is neutral and reflects hues of beige?

If there is significant research behind these changes, then we are all for positive change. What concerns us is that, in our experience, many practitioners cannot explain the rationale for why and how they present activities in a certain way. There is a mismatch in the setting’s curriculum intentions with the appearance and presentation of the nursery space.

The environment’s design is imposed on them. Unless practitioners challenge the negative impact of minimal resources, choice and experiences, children’s learning will be hindered.

Where is the child’s voice in how the premises are organised, decorated, and designed? What, if any, role do children have in creating the spaces where they play and explore? In such stark, bland environments, how do we inspire children and continually support their creativity, curiosity, and investigative skills? Is a toddler likely to want to go and explore a large, airy, bland open space? Practitioners need to consider how overwhelming this can appear for some children. Where are the homely, cosy spaces with pockets of warm, calming colour?

We are not approving one methodology of teaching over another. We just want to be convinced about how current trends are ‘right’ for young children. What impact do these environments have on children’s learning? How well can children focus and concentrate for long periods when there is a distinct lack of choice and variation? Are we hindering how children learn by not actively promoting the characteristics of effective teaching and learning?

Extensive research has been carried out on the effects of colour on the brain. Some experts claim that different colours enhance learning in different ways:

Blue encourages creativity. If overused, however, it can bring the mood down in a room. A cool blue enhances relaxation levels in individuals.

Yellow is known to replicate happiness for children as it is associated with sunshine. This can lift the mood and excite a child due to its vibrant appearance.

Orange is said to enhance critical thinking and memory.

We know that babies are born with monochrome vision; they do not start to see differences in shades of colour and pattern until around the age of eight months. This shift in a baby's development provides visual and cognitive stimulation. We cannot support a young child’s understanding of colour unless we provide real examples. Learning the different shades of colours and what colour means within the environment is an important life lesson. For example, once a child has a well-established understanding of the concept of red, we can help them to understand that red can represent potential danger, such as a ‘stop’ sign, or to identify a hot tap from the cold tap. Unless we have sufficient colour clues around us, and we maintain a sensible balance of neutrality and colour, the learning opportunities we offer children are hindered.

Alongside the lack of colour, we need to address the limited range of resources available in some settings. A manager in one setting recently told us she was ‘getting rid of all the toys’. This causes concern as, when questioned, she could not fully explain her rationale for this. We totally support the notion to offer children more open-ended, natural, real-life, and creative resources to explore. The learning potential of loose parts is endless and far more beneficial than plastic resources with limited play experiences and restricted creativity. However, what concerns us is when well-meaning practitioners and, at times, managers, tell us they are ‘doing the Curiosity Approach’, as if it is something you dip into with no background reading or in-depth understanding of its pedagogical intentions. When questioned about why an old suitcase has been placed on the floor filled with sand, practitioners cannot always explain this. They do not understand what the rationale is and seem more focused on commenting how visually pleasing it looks. Agreed, it does look interesting, and might capture a young child’s imagination. But why are we doing this? And what are the intentions behind the learning environments being created? It concerns us that too many providers are being heavily influenced by the images they see posted on social media, and these have become the new ‘norms’.

Leaders are redesigning their nursery spaces without considering first what the rationale behind this is. And, more importantly, they appear to be failing to teach their staff to recognise how the environment should be used to support the setting’s curriculum. A leader’s priority should be to offer an environment which reflects the setting’s ethos and maximises children’s wellbeing and learning potential. There is a growing trend for rooms to look like a charity shop emporium, or how we have also heard rooms described as ‘my great grandma’s front room’. There are some well-researched pedagogical approaches which support this, and settings must work hard to be accredited under this approach.

We are not, by any means, knocking this. However, when we go into settings and see this type of set up and then question practitioners about its rationale and how it supports the curriculum, quite often, we are met with a confused response and practitioners are not always clear. Therefore, if you are taking the leap to strip back and refurbish a nursery environment, and make radical changes in how it is presented, make sure practitioners working in these spaces understand clearly how to support children’s learning and development. There is little value in creating a beautiful learning environment if those working with the children do not know how to use it and cannot articulate it to others, such as inspector, when asked.