A blended early-years curriculum combines elements from several approaches, such as Reggio Emilia, Montessori, STEAM and project-based learning, within a single coherent framework, usually alongside a national programme. It works when the borrowed elements share a consistent view of the child and of the adult’s role, when each element is chosen for a clear purpose, and when the team can explain how they fit together; it fails when a school collects labels without resolving the contradictions between them.
Most early-years settings outside the home of a particular approach are, in practice, blended. This article is for school leaders, pedagogical leads and teachers designing or reviewing such a curriculum. It compares the main approaches side by side, sets out what each contributes, names the most common contradictions, and offers practical tests for coherence, using the Global Nexus framework at Global Star School as a worked example.
Why most schools end up blending
Pure implementations of any single approach are demanding. A full Montessori programme needs trained guides, complete sets of materials and long work cycles. Reggio Emilia grew within a specific civic and cultural context that cannot be transplanted. The IB PYP requires authorisation. The EYFS is a statutory framework designed for England. Waldorf rests on a particular philosophy of child development. A school in Vietnam that operates under national regulations, often bilingually, with teachers trained in different traditions, will almost inevitably draw on several sources.
Blending can be a strength. Each approach emphasises something valuable and neglects something else, and a thoughtful combination can offset weaknesses. Montessori’s precision and independence can complement Reggio’s expressive and collaborative investigation; STEAM’s attention to testing ideas can sharpen projects; a national programme ensures that no area of development is forgotten.
Blending can also be a weakness. A school that advertises five approaches may simply be using one material from each, with no shared understanding underneath. Teachers receive mixed signals, children experience inconsistent expectations, and families cannot tell what the school actually believes. The difference between the two outcomes is not the number of approaches but the coherence of the result.
Comparing the main approaches side by side
The table below summarises key features of approaches commonly drawn on in blended curricula. It simplifies each considerably and is intended as a starting point for team discussion, not a full description.
| Approach | Image of learning | Adult role | Signature practices |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reggio Emilia | Children co-construct knowledge through many forms of expression | Listener, researcher, co-learner | Long projects, documentation, atelier |
| Montessori | Children build themselves through purposeful independent work | Observer, presenter of materials | Prepared environment, work cycle, mixed ages |
| Waldorf | Children learn through imitation, rhythm and imagination | Model of meaningful work, keeper of rhythm | Free play, storytelling, seasonal rhythm |
| HighScope | Children learn through active participation and reflection | Partner in play, supporter of plans | Plan-do-review, interest areas, conflict steps |
| STEAM | Children think like scientists, engineers and artists | Questioner, provider of materials | Predict-test-explain cycles, open-ended materials |
| Project Approach | Children investigate real topics in depth | Guide of inquiry, organiser of fieldwork | Three-phase projects, fieldwork, representation |
Reading the columns together shows where approaches agree, for instance on active learning and respect for children’s ideas, and where they differ, for instance on fantasy, on how much adults present directly, and on time structure. Those differences are where blended curricula need deliberate decisions.
Four contradictions a blended curriculum has to resolve
Fantasy and reality. Montessori favoured real tools and tasks for young children and was cautious about pretend play; Waldorf places imaginative play at the centre. A school using both needs a position: for example, real tools and practical life in some areas, rich pretend play in others, and an explanation of why both serve children.
Individual work and group investigation. Montessori’s work cycle is largely individual; Reggio’s projects are largely collaborative. Both can coexist, but the timetable must protect time for each, and teachers need to know which mode they are in.
Following and leading. Reggio and the Project Approach follow children’s questions; national programmes and some literacy expectations require certain content. Teams must decide what is planned in advance, what emerges, and how the two are balanced over a term.
Time structure. Long uninterrupted periods, as in Montessori and HighScope, clash with timetables full of short specialist lessons. A coherent curriculum chooses which to prioritise and designs the day accordingly.
Choosing what to borrow, and why
A useful discipline is to state, for each borrowed element, what purpose it serves and what it requires. From Reggio Emilia, a school might borrow the image of the capable child, documentation and the use of materials as languages, which require time for teachers to interpret observations together. From Montessori, practical life, the prepared environment and precise demonstrations, which require child-sized furniture, organised materials and trained presentation. From STEAM, the predict-test-explain cycle and open-ended materials, which require adults comfortable with not giving answers. From the Project Approach, in-depth investigations with fieldwork, which require access to the community and flexible planning.
Equally important is deciding what not to borrow. A school may decide not to adopt full three-hour work cycles, or not to postpone literacy as Waldorf does, or not to follow children’s interests entirely without curriculum goals. These are legitimate choices, but they should be stated, so that the school’s claims match its practice.
This discipline also protects against fashion. New labels appear regularly in early education. A curriculum built on stated purposes can evaluate them calmly, asking whether a new element serves a purpose the current framework neglects, rather than adding it because families or competitors mention it.
The national programme as the frame
In Vietnam, licensed preschools operate within national regulations, and the Ministry of Education and Training’s preschool education programme sets out goals across five areas of development: physical, cognitive, language, social-emotional and aesthetic. A blended curriculum is most coherent when it uses the national programme as its frame rather than treating it as a separate obligation run in parallel.
In practice, this means mapping each borrowed element onto the national areas. Practical life and outdoor play support physical development; STEAM investigations and projects support cognitive development; storytelling, conversation and bilingual practice support language; collaborative projects and conflict-resolution routines support social-emotional development; and the atelier, music and expressive arts support aesthetic development. When the mapping is done carefully, the national programme is fulfilled through the chosen approaches rather than alongside them.
The mapping also helps with communication. Inspectors, families and new teachers can see how the curriculum meets national expectations, and teachers trained in the Vietnamese system can recognise familiar goals within unfamiliar practices.
A worked example: the Global Nexus framework
The Global Nexus curriculum, used at Global Star School in Ho Chi Minh City for children from infancy to six years, illustrates one way of blending. It names three principles: liberal-arts bilingual education, real experiential learning, and whole-child development. It attends to six dimensions of development: language, emotion, life skills, independence, creativity and thinking. And it draws on four approaches, Reggio Emilia, Montessori, STEAM and project-based learning, within the Vietnamese national preschool programme.
The coherence comes from the principles. Real experiential learning explains why projects and STEAM investigations are central and why flashcard drills are not used. Whole-child development explains why observation and documentation look at all six dimensions rather than academic skills alone, and why children are never scored or ranked. Bilingual education explains why Vietnamese and English are both used as tools for thinking, with Vietnamese as the anchor language. Each borrowed element can be traced back to at least one principle.
No framework is finished. The value of naming principles and dimensions explicitly is that the team has a shared reference when questions arise, such as whether to add a new programme or how to balance planned and emergent content. Other schools will make different choices; the method of choosing deliberately is what transfers.
Signs that a blend has turned into a collage
A collage is a curriculum assembled from pieces that do not talk to each other. The signs are usually visible within a morning in the classroom. Montessori materials sit on shelves that are rarely used because the timetable leaves no time for individual work. A Reggio-style display wall shows beautiful photos, but no teacher can say what was learned from them or what happened next. A STEAM corner holds a kit that is used once a month for a teacher demonstration. A project is announced in the newsletter but lasts two days.
Another sign is that teachers describe the curriculum by listing approaches rather than by explaining what children do and why. If the answer to what is your curriculum is a string of names, the team has not yet built a shared understanding beneath them.
A third sign comes from children. In a coherent curriculum, children know what to expect: how to choose work, where materials go, how a project develops, how conflicts are handled. In a collage, expectations change with each activity and each adult, and children spend more energy working out the rules than engaging with the learning.
Building the team’s shared understanding
Coherence lives in the team more than in documents. A curriculum handbook is useful, but teachers act on what they understand and believe. Schools that blend well invest in regular, structured professional conversation: observation reviews where teachers look at documentation together, joint planning for projects, and peer visits between classrooms of the same age.
Induction matters especially for teachers joining from a single tradition. A Montessori-trained teacher, a teacher from an English EYFS setting and a teacher trained in the Vietnamese system will each interpret the same curriculum through their own training. Explicit induction into the school’s principles, with examples from its own classrooms, saves months of quiet misalignment.
Finally, leaders can model the discipline of explaining. When a new initiative is proposed, asking which principle it serves and what it would replace keeps the curriculum focused and reminds the team that every element is there for a reason.
Families are part of this understanding too. When parents hear the same explanation of the curriculum from the admissions team, the class teacher and the school leader, and see it reflected in the documentation they receive, trust grows. When explanations differ, families fill the gaps with their own assumptions, often drawn from the marketing of other schools. A short shared description, revisited each year, keeps everyone telling the same story.
Five tests for a coherent blended curriculum
School leaders reviewing a blended curriculum can use the questions below as a practical check. They are deliberately simple, and each can be answered by looking at ordinary classroom evidence.
- The explanation test. Can every teacher explain, in a few sentences, why the school uses each borrowed element and what it is for?
- The timetable test. Does the daily timetable actually allow the practices the curriculum claims, such as long periods of play, project work and outdoor time?
- The documentation test. Does recent documentation show children’s thinking and influence what teachers did next, or is it mainly photos for families?
- The consistency test. Would a child moving between two classrooms of the same age experience the same expectations, routines and adult roles?
- The mapping test. Can the team show where each area of the national programme is addressed in everyday practice?
A curriculum that passes these tests can draw on many sources without becoming a collection of labels. One that fails them usually needs fewer elements, applied more deeply, rather than more.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
Is a blended curriculum less rigorous than a single approach?
Not necessarily. Rigour depends on coherence, teacher training and consistency of practice rather than on the number of sources. A well-designed blended curriculum with clear principles and trained teachers can be as rigorous as a single-approach programme, while a poorly implemented single approach can be superficial.
How many approaches should a curriculum draw on?
There is no ideal number. Most coherent blended curricula draw deeply on a few approaches rather than lightly on many. A practical guideline is that every borrowed element should serve a stated purpose and be visible in daily practice; if it is not, it probably should not be listed.
How should a school describe a blended curriculum to families?
Accurately and simply: name the principles, explain which approaches it draws on and what each contributes, and avoid implying full implementation of an approach where only elements are used. For example, a school can say it uses Montessori-style practical life rather than calling itself a Montessori school.
How do teachers trained in different approaches work together?
Through shared principles and regular collaborative planning and reflection. Teams benefit from discussing differences openly, such as views on fantasy play or direct teaching, and agreeing on the school’s position. Shared documentation and observation practices give teachers from different backgrounds a common language.
Does a blended curriculum still meet Vietnamese national requirements?
It can and should. Licensed preschools in Vietnam must meet national regulations, and the most coherent approach is to use the national preschool programme as the frame and map borrowed practices onto its five development areas, so that national goals are fulfilled through the chosen approaches.
Where can school leaders learn more about the Global Nexus framework?
This site explains the framework’s principles, dimensions and classroom practice in English. Training for kindergarten owners and teachers is offered through Global Nexus, and families interested in the programme in practice can arrange a visit through Global Star School’s admissions team.