3.8 Article

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

Journal

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 172-184

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1476718X211052791

Keywords

Bold Beginnings; early childhood education; Ofsted; policy; school readiness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines how international policy formulations impact school readiness policies at the local level in England, focusing on the formalisation of pedagogy and curriculum in Reception to prepare children for Year One. It questions the effectiveness of the OfSTED agenda in establishing Reception as a site for school readiness and raises concerns over the emphasis on teaching Mathematics, Reading and Writing for school readiness.
School readiness is a dominant discourse in current policy agendas in UK and international contexts, fulfilling a range of goals such as providing children with the 'best start in life' by breaking the cycle of poverty, and preparing children for formal learning in compulsory education. Focussing on the school readiness agenda in England, this paper interrogates how the local touchdown of international policy formulations influences policy at country-level. It is argued that the emphasis on teaching Mathematics, Reading and Writing as a way of readying children for school raises concerns over the formalisation of pedagogy and curriculum in the Reception year (aged 4-5), in preparation for the transition to Year One of the National Curriculum. Using Hyatt's Critical Discourse Policy Analysis Frame (CPDAF) this paper examines how the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) report 'Bold Beginnings' further strengthens the policy discourse that establishes Reception as a site for school readiness through a discursively constructed narrative of 'what works'. Based on the analysis, the paper then questions whether the 'what works' OfSTED agenda works for teachers and children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available