Learning, development and the early childhood curriculum: A critical discourse analysis of the Early Years Foundation Stage in England

Abstract

This article focuses on the national policy framework for early childhood education (birth to 5 years) in England – the Early Years Foundation Stage, specifically the use of child development theories as the underpinning knowledge base for practice. The aim is to understand what constructions of learning and development are foregrounded in policy, and their implications for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Critical Discourse Analysis methods are used to expose learning and development as messy constructs, and to propose three arguments. First, the evidence base for the Early Years Foundation Stage relies on selective appropriation of child development theories, and findings from government-funded research. These sustain normative discourses, reflecting a Piagetian ontology of ‘development leads learning’, through which children become ‘knowable’ and ‘measurable’. Second, the Early Years Foundation Stage shifts from developmental processes to learning outcomes as the basis for constructing curriculum, assessment of children’s outcomes and school readiness. Third, the Early Years Foundation Stage constitutes a discursive regime, which influences how practitioners must fulfil performance criteria that serve multiple purposes of assessing outcomes, evaluating standards and defining ‘quality’. From a critical perspective, this analysis questions the efficacy of the Early Years Foundation Stage in addressing the problems of equity and inclusion in diverse societies. The Early Years Foundation Stage exemplifies the policy technologies that can be discerned in international contexts, through which specific forms of curriculum coherence and control are produced. An alternative ‘learning leading development’ onto-epistemology is proposed, which offers potential for challenging the (il)logic of the Early Years Foundation Stage.

‘I feel like the Wicked Witch’: Identifying tensions between school readiness policy and teacher beliefs, knowledge and practice in Early Childhood Education

“…The concept of steering practice is increasingly visible in policy-intensive environments for ECE. In England the national inspection body, the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED), intervenes directly in matters of pedagogy, curriculum, play and school readiness via research reviews and practice guidance (Wood, 2019(Wood, , 2020. Such interventions mean that although teachers interpret school readiness discourse in policy within the contexts of their practice (Hizli Alkan & Priestley, 2019), their professional knowledge and beliefs are constrained by these prescriptive policy drivers (Kay, 2018).…”

Play and learning in early childhood education: tensions and challenges

“…Finding a 'best fit' between the apparent orderliness of curriculum frameworks and the complexities of play remains problematic (Ruscoe, Barblett & Barratt-Pugh, 2021;Wood, 2020), and the urge towards 'structured' and 'guided' play leans more towards apparent orderliness. With the play/education debates, there are different positions.…”

“…This bifurcation indicates that biological/maturational perspectives retain power within the field, informed by child development theories. At the same time, curriculum frameworks in different countries exert different degrees of pressure on educators, according to the levels of prescription of defined outcomes (for example in England) (Wood, 2020), and description of indicative goals (for example in New Zealand and Australia) (Barblett, Knaus & Barratt-Pugh, 2016;Gunn & Nuttall, 2019;Wood & Hedges, 2016). Pyle and Danniels (2017) propose that 'purposeful play' sits on a continuum between developmental goals and academic goals, but this remains a problematic construct depending on whose purposes are privileged -those of the children, or those of the educators.…”

‘What works’ and for whom? Bold Beginnings and the construction of the school ready child

“…However, the focus on narrow objectives linked to reading, phonics and writing ignores the broader Literacy curriculum that equitably considers all aspects of communication and language. Furthermore, Wood (2020) highlights how these EYFS objectives are skills-based outcomes, reducing Literacy to an entity that can be observed and measured, rather than a complex social and cultural practice.…”