Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is a repository copy of 'What works' and for whom? Bold Beginnings and the
construction of the school ready child.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/179297/
Version: Accepted Version
Article:
Kay, L. orcid.org/0000-0002-9740-3564 (Accepted: 2021) 'What works' and for whom?
Bold Beginnings and the construction of the school ready child. Journal of Early Childhood
Research. ISSN 1476-718X (In Press)
© 2020 The Author. This is an author produced version of a paper accepted for publication
in Journal of Early Childhood Research. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-
archiving policy. Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Reuse
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
(CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long
as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More
information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
‘What works’ and for whom? Bold Beginnings and the construction of the school ready child
Abstract
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.
Focusing 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.
Key words: early childhood education; school readiness; policy; Ofsted; Bold Beginnings
Introduction
Over the past twenty years, Early Childhood Education (ECE) has been a focal point for education
and social policy interventions aimed towards raising standards, reducing poverty, and improving
future outcomes for children. As a result, international organisations such as the World Bank and
the Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD) have encouraged
government investment in ECE as a way of improving the socio-economic prospects of future
generations (OECD, 2017; World Bank, 2018). Ensuring school readiness is a key driver to
improve the life-chances of children and is seen globally as a ‘viable strategy’ that aims to close
the learning gap amongst young children by supporting the ‘adoption of policies and standards for
early learning’ (UNICEF, 2012: 4).
Whilst the key drivers behind the school readiness agenda are to address social inequalities,
there is no clear, singular definition of school readiness, or the school ready child (OfSTED, 2014;
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, 2015; UNICEF, 2012). The OECD report Starting
Strong V (2017) highlights how countries adopt different approaches to the school readiness
agenda, and the outcomes that are privileged when assessing a child’s readiness for school.
Countries who follow a social pedagogy tradition (Nordic and Central European countries) favour
an ‘open and holistic curriculum’, whereas countries where ECE is associated with primary
education (France and the English-speaking world, with the exception of New Zealand) tend to
privilege academic outcomes linked to Mathematics and Literacy (OECD, 2006: 135). It is argued
that the policy construction of school readiness that focuses on academic outcomes has led to the
‘schoolification’ of the early years (Bradbury, 2019; Moss and Cameron, 2020). The Starting
Strong V (OECD, 2017: 254) report warns this may result in the focus shifting away from the
participation of the child towards practices such as ‘higher staff-pupil ratios, more hours spent
away from home, more teacher-directed pedagogies, greater attention to academic content and less
playtime’.
The aim of this paper is to highlight how the school readiness agenda has influenced
educational policy at a local level, the outcomes that are privileged within a particular construct of
the school-ready child, and the potential impact on teachers and children. In a critical analysis of
workforce reform in ECE policy, Kay et al. (2019: 180) establish how the exploration of the ‘touch
down of global policy flows, and the responses made at national level’ contribute to wider
international debates in ECE. In light of policy reach and intensification, it is therefore important
to interrogate local touch down, and local policy formulations at country-level as responses to and
outcomes of these broader global meta-narratives.
The focus on the English policy landscape in this paper is intentional and relevant to
international debates about the school readiness agenda, and the educational and economic
outcomes that are expected from government investment in ECE. School readiness is a dominant
discourse in ECE policy and is seen by the government as a way of providing children with a head
start into compulsory education and establishing England as key player in the global market (Kay
2018a). Accordingly, the reach and policy intensification of this agenda are evident in the
formulation of curriculum goals (DfE 2017a) in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (birth
to 5 education and care framework) and in national assessments (STA, 2017). Each child’s
performance at the end of the EYFS is judged through the use of the Good Level of Development
(GLD) which in turn has become a measure of school readiness. In order to achieve a GLD each
child must meet the learning outcomes set out in the 17 Early Learning Goals, which are the EYFS
standards for learning and development.
In addition to these curricular and assessment performativity constructs, the education
inspectorate, the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED), monitors and regulates educational
services in England. Formed under the Education (Schools) Act in 1992, OfSTED is one of the
largest inspection bodies in the United Kingdom, and since 2005 has been responsible for
inspecting early years services, producing reports, and more recently research reviews. This paper
focuses on Bold Beginnings, an Ofsted research review of the curriculum in the Reception year in
England (DfE, 2017a). The Reception year (age 4-5) is the last year of the EYFS (birth to 5),
regulated by the EYFS statutory framework which sets the standards for learning, development
and care across all ECE settings. Commissioned by Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman, the review
had the aim of ‘providing fresh insight into leaders’ curriculum intentions, how these are
implemented and the impact on outcomes for pupils’ (OfSTED, 2017a: 2). The report, Bold
Beginnings (OfSTED, 2017a: 4), aimed to examine provision and the ‘extent to which it was
preparing four- and five-year olds for their years of schooling and life ahead’.
This analysis will reveal how OfSTED has become a producer of particular discourses that
impact on the way in which educational standards are conceptualised at a local level (Baxter,
2014). Neaum (2016: 243) argues that ‘The significance of OfSTED’s assessment of school
readiness cannot be underestimated’ as they are able to influence policy in such a way that places
them in a central position to the ‘creation and maintenance of the dominant discourse’. Within this
context, OfSTED defines the direction and purpose of governing education, and through the
inspection framework they ‘promote and embody the governing project’ as a way of driving
change in education (Ozga et al., 2013: 220). These power effects are played out not only via the
inspection system, but also through reports such as Bold Beginnings which serve to further re-
enforce the purpose of ECE to ‘ready’ children for school.
This paper makes an original contribution to policy studies in ECE, specifically what
interventions are made, and by which government organisations, in order to connect global
discourses and local responses. Hyatt’s (2013a: 837) Critical Policy Discourse Analysis Frame
(CPDAF) is applied to reveal how Bold Beginnings re-enforces the school readiness agenda, and
how this is 'shaped and characterised ideologically through relations of power'. Section 1 justifies
Hyatt’s framework within the wider field of policy analysis. This is followed in section 2 by an
analysis of Bold Beginnings, specifically how the discourses of ‘what works’ and school readiness
are constructed. The discussion then focuses on the consequent power effects of this discourse that
persuade schools and teachers to act in particular ways. Finally, this analysis identifies critical
questions about what the concomitant tensions and dilemmas are for teachers and children.
Critical Policy Discourse Analysis Frame as an Analytical Framework
Ball (1993) presents two conceptualisations of policy: policy-as-text and policy-as-discourse.
Recent approaches to policy analysis centre discourse as a process that involves the ‘production,
reification and implementation of policy’ (Hyatt, 2013b: 44). Relevant to this discussion is Ball’s
(1993: 12) view that policies are ‘textual interventions into practice’ posing ‘problems to their
subjects’ and creating circumstances in which ‘the range of options available in deciding what to
do are narrow or changed’. Furthermore, Hyatt’s (2013a: 837) framework views discourse as being
‘socially and culturally formed’, offering certain perspectives that come to be considered as
‘normal’ and others as ‘deviant’ or ‘marginal’.
Hyatt’s CPDAF provides a toolkit for policy analysts that is ‘empirically grounded in the
text but informed by and linked to the broad policy context’ (Wiggan, 2018: 723). The frame
comprises of two elements: the first is concerned with contextualisation of the policy, and the
second with the deconstruction of the policy text and discourse. Contextualisation considers the
drivers, levers, steering and trajectory of the policy which Hyatt (2013a: 838) argues are ‘central
to understanding the evolution of a policy’ and how it is interpreted in different contexts by various
actors leading to its ‘interpretation and recontextualisations by and within institutions’.
Contextualisation is important as the role of OfSTED has intensified with responsibility for
inspecting schools, childcare, adoption and fostering agencies, initial teacher training, and the
regulation of early years and children’s social care service. Schools and early years setting are
monitored by OfSTED for their ‘effectiveness’, and teachers and managers exist within a regime
of ‘accepted modes of successful practice’ (Perryman et al., 2018: 147). Through these inspection
processes, and recent research reviews such as Bold Beginnings, OfSTED is positioned as ‘the sole
arbiter of quality’ and has the power to influence how and what is taught in order to produce the
desired learning outcomes of children (Wood, 2019: 793). Threatened with closure if they receive
a ‘notice to improve’ in an inspection, schools exist within a ‘high stakes’ context whereby the
question ‘What does OfSTED want?’ dominates teachers’ thinking and behaviour (Ehren et al.,
2015: 391).
Drawing on Cochran-Smith and Fries (2001: 4), the second part of the contextualisation
process examines how the policy discourse signifies ‘justification, authority or “reasonable
grounds”, particularly those that are established for some course of action, statement, or belief’.
The notion of warrant is subdivided into three categories: evidentiary, accountability and political.
The evidentiary warrant examines how policy provides and uses selected evidence to supported
presented conclusions. However, it is pertinent to acknowledge Hyatt’s (2013a: 839) observation
that ‘evidence is not a neutral entity’, and that ‘selections, omissions, and interpretations’ are
permeated with values and embedded in ideology. The accountability warrant highlights what
might happen if a desired course of action is not implemented through the presentation of potential
negative outcomes. The political warrant is justification in terms of the ‘public good’, usually
evoked by reference to ‘freedom, social justice, inclusion, social cohesion, or family values’
(Hyatt, 2013a: 839).
Integral to the deconstruction component is the analysis of Bold Beginnings at a semantic
and lexical level utilising Fairclough’s (2003) four modes of legitimation. These are the processes
by which values and norms are attached to policies as a form of justification; authorisation
(legitimation by reference to authority of tradition, custom, individuals); rationalisation
(legitimation by reference to the value of a particular course of action); moral evaluation
(legitimation by an appeal to a value system around what is desirable) and myths (cautionary
narratives advising of the positive/ negative actions of particular courses of action) (Hyatt, 2013a).
The first part of this analysis will provide an overview of the policy landscape of ECE in
England. The use of warrant in Bold Beginnings will consider how the ‘what works’ strategies are
constructed for teachers to implement in the Reception classroom as a way of producing the
‘school ready’ child, and how these are ‘shaped and characterised ideologically through
realisations of power’ (Hyatt, 2013a: 837). The discussion will conclude by critically considering
whether the ‘what works’ discourse constructed in Bold Beginnings actually works for all children
and teachers.
The ECE policy context in England
Flewitt and Roberts-Holmes (2015: 96) argue that ‘discourses of economy have dominated
neoliberal national and global arguments for educational transformation’, and that Mathematics
and Literacy are commonly seen by the English government to be the panacea for the ‘social ills
of poverty, unemployment and poor health’. The privileging of Mathematics and Literacy as the
panacea for an improved society is reflected in the trajectory of ECE curricular and assessment
policy frameworks over the past twenty years. The Desirable Learning Outcomes (SCAA, 1996)
marked a significant starting point in the reform of ECE as prescribed outcomes were imposed on
children age four- and five-years old (Kay, 2018a). A national framework, Curriculum Guidance
for the Foundation Stage (CGFS) (QCA, 2000) was introduced for children from three to five
years old, with the core aim of providing a ‘smooth path from birth into compulsory schooling’
(Faulkner and Coates, 2013: 22). This curricular iteration followed a ‘standards-based’ agenda,
measured through children’s achievement of the Early Learning Goals (QCA 1999) and reported
to the government through the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) (QCA, 2003/2008),
a summative assessment process completed at the end of the Reception year for children between
4-5 years old.
In 2002, the Education Act extended the National Curriculum in English primary schools
to include the Foundation Stage, and the six areas of learning in the guidance became statutory:
• Personal and social development
• Language and literacy
• Mathematics
• Knowledge and understanding
• Physical development
• Creative development
The EYFSP also became statutory whereby each child receiving government-funded education
had to complete thirteen summary scales for each of the six areas of learning by the end of his or
her time in the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2003/2004). This policy formation marks the beginning
of the ‘culture of accountability’ in ECE, where teachers and schools are judged on the reported
attainment data of the children. As a consequence, the need for teachers and educational leaders to
be coercive within this policy context increased as schools were regulated through the ‘disciplinary
technologies’ (Roberts-Holmes, 2014: 304) of OfSTED inspections, and the performativity culture
was re-enforced through the EYFSP data. Ball (2003: 216) defines this type of performativity as
‘a technology, a culture and a mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons and
displays as means of incentive, control, attrition and change based on rewards and sanctions (both
material and symbolic)’. Within an English educational context, this means teachers must achieve
a favourable OfSTED grading and accomplish good national test and assessment results in order
to secure a high position in school league tables, thereby becoming more attractive to parents and
students in the educational marketplace (Jeffrey, 2002).
In spite of twenty years of policy interventions in ECE, Bold Beginnings asserts that for
some children, particularly those who are disadvantaged, the Reception year is ‘far from
successful’ (OfSTED, 2017a, 9). However, OfSTED now measure ‘success’ as children achieving
the outcomes required for the GLD. Children who do not reach the expected level in those
outcomes are therefore considered to have been ‘unsuccessful’ in their Reception year. Of
particular concern is that, year on year, children find the outcomes for Literacy and Mathematics
the most difficult, resulting in the lowest percentage of attainment across the EYFSP (DfE, 2019).
Furthermore, findings from a national review of practice in the Reception year (Pascal et al., 2017:
27), highlight how pedagogy in Reception is 'becoming more instructional, teacher directed and
narrowly focused on Literacy and Mathematics learning, with a loss of play and more
individualised, creative approaches'.
Research findings that define ‘good’ or ‘effective’ practice, exemplified in Bold
Beginnings, have a powerful influence on how the standards must be achieved via specific
approaches to curriculum planning and pedagogy. Bold Beginnings therefore further illuminates
the intensification of the role of OfSTED as the provider of knowledge about best practices in ECE
through research-based evidence generated in their own reports. With this in mind it is important
to consider how Bold Beginnings has the potential to influence the work of teachers through a
discourse that links school readiness with a ‘what works’ agenda. The following section
deconstructs Bold Beginnings to expose the power effects of OfSTED.
Deconstructing Bold Beginnings
Framed rhetorically as a way of ensuring children have the ‘best start in life’ (Field, 2010; Allen,
2011), the school readiness agenda aims to break the cycle of poverty at the most ‘cost-effective’
point and prepare children for formal learning in Key Stage One (ages 5 - 7) (Kay, 2018a).
Throughout Bold Beginnings there is a dominant narrative of accountability which warns of
restricted life chances if children are not prepared for the ‘demands of Year 1’ (OfSTED, 2017a:
12). Moral evaluation is exemplified through the assertion that: ‘A good education is the
foundation for later success. For too many children, however, their Reception year is a missed
opportunity that can leave them exposed to all the painful and unnecessary consequences of falling
behind their peers’ (4). The use of cautionary language - “missed opportunity”, “falling behind”,
“exposed”, “painful” and “unnecessary” - establishes a warrant of accountability, shifting the focus
of Reception as the transition between the EYFS and Key Stage One, to the core purpose of
ensuring that children are ‘readied’ for school. Furthermore, Bold Beginnings rationalises that a
‘good education’ will ensure later success which contextualises the intended aims of the report to
define what a ‘good education’ looks like.
It is pertinent to consider the methodology OfSTED uses to create the evidentiary warrant
that defines a ‘good education’ in Bold Beginnings. A total of 41 schools, recently judged to be
‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, were visited by OfSTED inspectors in the summer term. During the visit
inspectors spoke with headteachers and staff, observed children’s learning in mathematics, reading
and writing, and listened to children read. A yes/no survey was also distributed to schools and
relevant stakeholders asking leaders and Reception staff to ‘share their views about the typical
knowledge, skills and understanding shown by children on entry and exit from Reception’
(OfSTED, 2017a: 31) which generated 208 responses from 76 schools. As Wood (2019) highlights
in her analysis of Teaching and play in the early years – a balancing act? (OfSTED, 2015), there
is no information about the framework used for interviewing headteachers and staff, and there is
no reference to the qualifications, experience or age of the participants. Importantly, Bold
Beginnings highlights that its overall aim is to ‘provide fresh insight into leaders’ curriculum
intentions’ (OfSTED, 2017a: 2) but again no further explanation is provided of the specific
experience headteachers had of teaching in the early years. References to research evidence is
limited, with one citation of a Department for Education (DfE) (Sylva et al., 2014) longitudinal
study Students’ educational and developmental outcomes at age 16, signposting to EYFS policy
frameworks, and two sources focusing on the attainment of vocabulary (Beck, McKeown and
Kucan, 2002) and mastery in Mathematics (NCETM, 2016). This evidentiary warrant thus draws
on a limited ‘evidence base’ and echoes Wood’s (2019: 790) assertion that OfSTED utilises a
‘circular discourse’ to ‘uncritically reinforce the OfSTED narrative’ and calls into question the
reliability of the research and the validity of the recommendations.
Bold Beginnings claims legitimacy on the basis of what ‘successful primary schools’ are
doing, where success is measured on whether children, including those from disadvantaged
backgrounds, have ‘achieved well’, defined as meeting the outcomes necessary for the GLD. This
is a key political warrant in Bold Beginnings, justified by the rationalisation that the purpose of the
Reception year is to provide children with the ‘essential knowledge and understanding they need
to reach the good level of development’. The report warns that if this does not happen, children
will be predisposed to ‘years of catching up rather than forging ahead’ (OfSTED, 2017a: 9).
Headteachers are responsible for ensuring the curriculum being delivered in Reception is ‘fit for
purpose’, with the ‘purpose’ defined as equipping children to ‘meet the challenges of Year 1 and
beyond’ (4). This core purpose justifies the focus on evidencing how ‘good’ schools with a ‘clear
vision’ ensure the children are ‘prepared’ for the ‘demands of the years ahead’ (12).
Consistent with Hyatt’s framework, as a way of conceptualising the power effects of Bold
Beginnings a search for the word ‘successful’ was carried out. It was then identified how this word
was situated within the text to establish an evidentiary warrant of ‘what works’. For OfSTED to
define schools who are undertaking these more formal practices as ‘successful’ is a powerful
rhetorical tool implemented as a way of ‘persuading’ teachers to adopt ‘what works’. The nature
of the evidence presented, sourced from schools graded as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, and positioning
the voices of teachers and headteachers as central to the discussion, establishes a powerful
narrative of authorisation around the ‘what works’ agenda and how this is implemented in practice.
For those ‘successful schools’, reading was placed at the ‘heart of the curriculum’, and
Literacy and Mathematics were given ‘sufficient direct teaching time every day’ (OfSTED, 2017a:
4). The importance of reading is prevalent within Bold Beginnings, and a search of the document
reveals the word ‘reading’ occurs 76 times. The use of words such as ‘core purpose’ and
‘fundamental’ rationalises the privileging of reading and phonics within the Reception curriculum
and constructs a particular set of skills and behaviour that define Literacy in terms of content and
pedagogy. 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.
Building on this rhetoric, key recommendations in the report attribute importance to the
teaching of numbers, and an assertion that reading and phonics should be ‘the core purpose of the
Reception year’ (OfSTED, 2017a: 7). These recommendations are rationalised with the explicit
assertion that ‘by the end of Reception, the ability to read, write and use numbers is fundamental’.
Bold Beginnings presents formal practices as evidence of good practice in children’s attainment in
Reading, Writing and Mathematics, including children sitting at tables, using a correct pencil grip
when writing in ‘exercise books’ (23), and undertaking complex place-value calculations using
‘Base 10 materials’ (25). Kay (2018b: 331) argues that the EYFS policy-practice logic shows a
‘distinct shift towards effective teaching’ and the acquisition of formal outcomes in Mathematics
and Literacy, thereby establishing the core purpose of the Reception year in readying children for
school.
Through Bold Beginnings, a policy version of the school ready child is discursively
constructed through formal approaches to teaching and learning, while alternative conceptions of
school readiness are ignored. The power effect that this creates, through discourses of
accountability, positions teachers and children in particular ways. The next section will discuss
what this policy analysis has highlighted about school readiness, and ‘what works’ in the context
of Bold Beginnings. It will also be questioned whether this construction of ‘school readiness’
solves the policy problems it sets out to achieve or creates new problems/ challenges for teachers
and children.
Bold Beginnings and the ‘what works’ agenda
This analysis has revealed how Bold Beginnings re-enforces the political agenda that being ‘ready’
for school is the best start in life for all children, particularly disadvantaged and marginalised
children. It is difficult for teachers and researchers to argue against such a powerful discourse
because it constructs a ‘hegemonic common sense’, and any criticism can be portrayed as being
‘negative, unambitious and harbouring low expectations of the disadvantaged’ (Ng, 2008: 596).
Described by Ball (2003: 16) as a ‘mode of regulation’, the importance of achieving a favourable
OfSTED grading of Good or Outstanding is paramount to a school’s success. Consequently, the
practices that have been favourably judged by OfSTED are legitimised creating a mimetic
isomorphism as schools strive to reproduce those practices. The temptation to imitate other schools
who have achieved a good or outstanding inspection outcome, and the importance placed on
children being ‘readied’ for school in a particular way, becomes difficult to avoid.
The view of ‘readiness’ constructed in Bold Beginnings is embedded within a policy
discourse of formal teaching methods and the privileging of instrumental outcomes. Rather than
draw on their professional judgement and experiences, contradictions emerge as teachers are
expected to comply within the demands of performativity, acting out the expectations established
in these OfSTED publications. As a consequence, Connell (2013: 108) asserts that OfSTED has
the potential to de-professionalise teachers and their ‘capacity to make autonomous judgment
about curriculum and pedagogy in the interests of their actual pupils is undermined by the system
of remote control’. Furthermore, Biesta (2007: 21) argues that the ‘what works’ agenda of
evidence-based practice focuses on technical questions while ‘forgetting the need for critical
inquiry into normative and political questions about what is educationally desirable’. The
production of an introspective knowledge base does not allow other kinds of knowledge to enter
policy debate and ignores the divisive social consequences of the market agenda in education
which has a propensity to privilege certain groups over others (Connell, 2013). Through the ‘what
works’ agenda, Bold Beginnings advocates a ‘best way’ to teach, ignoring the multiple
perspectives of ECE pedagogy in favour of a more formal mode of delivery to ensure particular
outcomes are met. This is in contradiction to the Characteristics of Effective Learning (CoEL),
and the mixed approaches advocated by the EYFS on teacher-led and child-initiated activities,
including play and exploration.
The concern here is that a focus on academic readiness may have already become the
modus operandi as teachers work within a framework where their performance is judged on the
results their pupils achieve, particularly with technical skills being foregrounded in the school
readiness agenda. The privileging of particular formations of phonics, Literacy and Mathematics
in Bold Beginnings re-enforces the ‘schoolification’ (Roberts-Holmes, 2014) of the early years as
teachers strive to ensure children achieve these outcomes. Ball (2003: 222) argues that the pressure
of accountability that is placed on teachers creates a form of ‘values schizophrenia’ where teachers
have to sacrifice their own judgements and beliefs for measurable outputs and performances. By
constructing a pedagogy of ‘what works’ in Bold Beginnings, OfSTED further steers the teaching
practices and curriculum provision of Reception teachers in explicit ways and provides the means
by which policy goals can be accomplished. Furthermore, the report highlights an increasing policy
intensification around discourses of school readiness and effective practices, creating tensions
between policy aims and aspirations, and the established values and beliefs of the ECE sector.
Whilst policy in ECE aspires to reduce the educational impact of poverty and disadvantage,
it is questioned whether the ‘what works’ agenda perpetuated by Bold Beginnings works for all
children, or if it re-enforces the privileging of particular groups of children. Darbyshire et al. (2014:
818) suggest there is a disconnect ‘between the pressures felt by teachers to get children ready for
a prescribed school curriculum at an ever-earlier age’, and the individual needs of children who
may benefit from ‘broader developmental experiences’. The OfSTED report counters this
disconnect by claiming that ‘Increasingly, children are arriving in Reception personally, socially
and emotionally ready to learn – that is, able and eager to take on the increased challenges of the
specific, content-led areas of the wider curriculum’ (OfSTED, 2017a: 10). Whilst this might be
the case for some children, there are many cultural and contextual factors to consider when we
contemplate the diverse life experiences that children bring into the classroom (Biesta, 2010; Lenz
Taguchi, 2010).
Referring back to Hyatt’s (2013a) framework, the failure to recognise developmental
complexities and variations in children’s diverse social and cultural experiences highlights the way
discourse constructs what is considered to be ‘normal’ and the way those who do not fit the
corresponding descriptors are positioned as ‘deviant’ or ‘marginal’. Factors such as English as an
Additional Language, Special Educational Needs, being in receipt of Free School Meals, summer
born children and gypsy/Roma children are consistently highlighted in the EYFSP data as those
who do not achieve the GLD (DfE, 2019). The data illuminates how the construction of the GLD
as a measurement of school readiness further marginalises children who are already disadvantaged
by positioning them in an educationally deficit position as they enter Year One (aged 5).
Furthermore, the focus on the data of the GLD in Bold Beginnings seemingly contradicts the
assertion in the EYFS (DfE, 2017a: 6) that ‘children develop and learn in different ways and at
different rates’. Children who do not reach the outcomes linked to the GLD are judged as being at
a lower stage in their expected development and consequently become a site for intervention to
ready them for school.
Roberts-Holmes (2014: 304) argues that these inappropriate assessment constructs de-
contextualise children, teachers and schools, and ‘denies the impact of structural inequality’, laying
the responsibility at the feet of teachers and individual schools. When the focus is centred on
‘micro-level child and family characteristics’ rather than ’macro-level systemic and political
factors’, issues of power and social justice are ignored (Shallwani, 2009: 6). Rather, the child is
idealised as a learner that is both agent, ‘obliged to protect the prosperity of the nation’, as well as
subject through which ‘interventions are inscribed’ (Sonu and Benson, 2016: 236). Hence, tensions
emerge between the need to improve the socio-economic circumstances of future generations for
the greater benefit of society, and the individual needs of the child.
The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic and the diverse range of experiences faced
by the early years sector and families and children highlight further complexities in ECE. Between
March and June 2020, the first national lockdown was implemented in England to prevent the
spread of the virus with imposed restrictions including the closure of schools and early years
settings. The sector faced significant challenges during this time with staffing/ratio issues and
financial feasibility as the number of children attending settings diminished. In response to the
crisis, the DfE paused the EYFSP assessment for 2020, and announced that completion of the
profile would not be mandatory in 2021. Furthermore, the advice for EYFS providers was to use
‘a “reasonable endeavours” approach in complying with the learning and development
requirements’ (DfE 2020a). The DfE (2021) defined ‘reasonable endeavours’ as prioritising
children’s care and safety within settings and providing a ‘broad range of educational
opportunities’.
During the first lockdown, the government announced that settings should provide
childcare for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers (DfE, 2020). The Local
Government Association (2020: online) reports that during this period the number of children
attending early years settings fell to around 4% of the usual level asserting that ‘we do not yet
know the impact of this fall in attendance on child development and school readiness’. However,
research findings from the Sutton Trust (Pascal et al., 2020: 3) highlight the different experiences
of children who continued to access provision and benefited from smaller class sizes or were at
home spending ‘quality time with their parents’ and those children who were at home in more
difficult circumstances, likely to be ‘the most vulnerable in the system’. In a report on social
mobility and COVID-19, Montacute (2020: 4) asserted there was a significant risk that the crisis
would ‘further open up the early years’ attainment gap in both the short and the long term’.
Despite the pandemic, OfSTED continued to carry out ‘assurance inspections’ across the
education system with due regard to the limitations that were placed on schools and early years
settings. As part of these inspections OfSTED (2021: online) aimed to identify how settings
worked to ensure children ‘return to their expected levels of development’. Rather than consider
how to facilitate effective transitions for children and families, the OfSTED focus was on catching
up on lost learning in order to meet specific outcomes. This failed to acknowledge the complexities
of children’s experiences during the lockdown period, and the ramifications these experiences may
have had on their transition back into the school environment.
Conclusion
In this article, the local touchdown of global policy discourses has been explored focusing on how
the OfSTED report Bold Beginnings has constructed the school ready child. I have argued that the
‘what works’ agenda presented in Bold Beginnings contributes to the continuing emphasis on
formal approaches in order to ‘ready’ children for school, embedded within discourses of
accountability and performativity. The drive to improve educational outcomes and give children a
head-start as they progress into Year One has taken precedence over established approaches to
ECE and has repositioned Reception as the school readiness year rather than the transitional year
into school. Furthermore, Bold Beginnings has reified a particular version of school readiness that
aligns with the National Primary Curriculum beginning in Year One (ages 5/6) rather than the more
holistic approach of the EYFS. The current review of the EYFS framework (DfE, 2020b) which
will become the statutory guidance from September 2021 further re-enforces the concerns of the
‘top-down approach’ that continues to impact upon the educational experiences of young children
in England. In particular, the proposed Literacy Educational Programme in this review mirrors the
discourse of the Year One Programme of Study for English, highlighting a further push for formal
outcomes into the Reception year.
The OECD report, Early Learning and Child Well-being in England (2020: 3) describes
England as being ‘an international leader in education, making decisions based on evidence rather
than ideology or convenience’. However, this analysis, has shown how policy intensification is
occurring in England through the power of the education inspectorate, but has also questioned the
evidence base of the recommendations made in Bold Beginnings. Consistent with Wood’s (2019)
argument, Bold Beginnings also uses circular discourses, based on selected evidence as the
evidentiary warrant for the claims of ‘what works’ in order to produce a policy version of school
readiness. This analysis, therefore, makes a significant contribution to international debates about
global discourses and local formulations of school readiness within a continuing trajectory of
formalisation in ECE provision. Hyatt’s (2013a) CPDAF has provided a way of interrogating the
ideological and political drivers behind the school readiness agenda, and how this impacts
policymaking at a national level. This analysis has revealed how Bold Beginnings re-enforces the
school readiness agenda through specific textual interventions in practice, and how this agenda is
'shaped and characterised ideologically through relations of power'. The paper makes a timely and
original contribution to the growing field of policy studies in ECE, specifically how government
policy levers and drivers are re-enforced in England through a powerful inspection regime, the
ongoing concerns about the impact on teachers’ practice, and the consequent implications for
children. These implications should be at the forefront of ECE practices as we move towards a
‘post-COVID’ world.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Elizabeth Wood for her feedback and continuing support in my
work. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
References
Allen G (2011) Early Intervention: The Next Steps. London: Crown copyright.
Ball S (1993) WHAT IS POLICY? TEXTS, TRAJECTORIES AND TOOLBOXES. Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 13(2): 10-17. DOI: 10.1080/0159630930130203.
Ball S (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy
18(2): 215-228. DOI: 10.1080/0268093022000043065.
Baxter J (2014) An independent inspectorate? Addressing the paradoxes of educational inspection
in 2013. School Leadership & Management 34(1): 21-38. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2013.856294.
Beck I, McKeown M and Kucan L (2002) Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction
(Solving Problems in the Teaching of Literacy). New York: Guilford Press.
Biesta G (2007) Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic
deficit in educational research. Educational Theory 57(1): 1-22. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-
5446.2006.00241.x.
Biesta G (2010) Five Theses on Complexity Reduction and its Politics. In: Osberg D and Biesta
G (eds) Complexity Theory and the Politics of Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 5-14.
Bradbury A (2019) Datafied at four: the role of data in the ‘schoolification’ of early childhood
education in England. Learning, Media and Technology 44(1): 7-21. DOI:
10.1080/17439884.2018.1511577.
Cochran-Smith M and Fries M (2001) Sticks, Stones and Ideology: The Discourse of Reform in
Teacher Education. Educational Researcher 30(8): 3–15. DOI:10.3102/0013189X 030008003.
Connell R (2013) The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and its
consequences. Critical Studies in Education 54(2): 99-112. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2013.776990.
Darbyshire N, Finn B, Griggs S and Ford C (2014) An unsure start for young children in English
urban primary schools. Urban Review 46(5): 816-830.
Department for Education (DfE) (2017a) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation
Stage. London: Crown copyright.
Department for Education (DfE) (2017b) Reception curriculum in good and outstanding primary
schools: bold beginnings. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reception-
curriculum-in-good-and-outstanding-primary-schools-bold-beginnings
Department for Education (DfE) (2019) Early years foundation stage profile results: 2018 to
2019. London: Crown copyright.
Department for Education (DfE) (2020a) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE EARLY
YEARS FOUNDATION STAGE (LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE
REQUIREMENTS) (CORONAVIRUS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020. Available at
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/444/pdfs/uksiem_20200444_en.pdf
Department for Education (DfE) (2020b) Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage
[EYFS reforms early adopter version]. London: Crown copyright.
Department for Education (DfE) (2021) Early years foundation stage: coronavirus
disapplications. Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-
foundation-stage-framework--2/early-years-foundation-stage-coronavirus-disapplications
Ehren MCM, Gustafsson JE, Altrichter H, Skedsmo G, Kemethofer D and Huber SG (2015)
Comparing effects and side effects of different school inspection systems across Europe.
Comparative Education 51(3): 375-400. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1045769.
Fairclough N (2003) Analysing Discourse and Text: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London:
Routledge.
Faulkner D and Coates EA (2013) Early childhood policy and practice in England: twenty years
of change. International Journal of Early Years Education 21(2–3): 244–263.
DOI:10.1080/09669760.2013.832945.
Field F (2010) The Foundation Years: preventing poor children become poor adults. London:
Crown copyright.
Flewitt R and Roberts-Holmes G (2015) Regulatory gaze and 'non-sense'phonics testing in early
literacy. In: Hamilton M, Heydon R, Hibbert K and Stooke R (eds) Negotiating Spaces for Literacy
Learning: Multimodality and Governmentality. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
DOI:10.5040/9781474257138.ch-007, pp. 95-114.
Hyatt D (2013a) The critical policy discourse analysis frame: helping doctoral students engage
with the educational policy analysis. Teaching in Higher Education 18(8): 833-845.
DOI:10.1080/13562517.2013.795935.
Hyatt D (2013b) The Critical Higher Education Policy Discourse Analysis Framework Theory
and Method in Higher Education Research.” In: Huisman J and Tight M (eds) Theory and
Method in Higher Education Research. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 41-60.
Jeffrey B (2002) Performativity and primary teacher relations. Journal of Education
Policy, 17(5): 531-546. DOI: 10.1080/02680930210158302.
Kay L, Wood E, Nuttall J and Henderson L (2019) Problematising policies for workforce reform
in early childhood education: a rhetorical analysis of England’s Early Years Teacher
Status. Journal of Education Policy. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2019.1637546.
Kay L (2018a) School Readiness: a culture of compliance? EdD thesis, University of Sheffield.
Kay L (2018b) Bold Beginnings and the Rhetoric of ‘School Readiness. FORUM 60(3): 327-336.
DOI:10.15730/forum.2018.60.3.327.
Lenz Taguchi H (2010) Rethinking Pedagogical Practices in Early Childhood Education: A
Multidimensional Approach to Learning and Inclusion. In: Yelland N (ed) Contemporary
Perspectives on Early Childhood Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 14-32.
Local Government Association (2020) A Child Centred Recovery. Available at
https://www.local.gov.uk/child-centred-recovery
Montacute R (2020) Social Mobility and COVID-19: Implications of the COVID-19 Crisis for
Educational Inequality. Available at https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19-and-Social-Mobility-1.pdf
Moss P and Cameron C (2020) Introduction: the state we’re in. In: Cameron C and Moss P (eds)
Transforming Early Childhood Education. London: UCL Press, pp. 1-18.
NCETM (2016) Mastery explained – what is it? Available at
https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/49450
Neaum S (2016) School readiness and pedagogies of Competence and Performance: theorising
the troubled relationship between early years and early years policy. International Journal of
Early Years Education 24(3): 239-253. DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2016.1205970.
Ng PT (2008) Education policy rhetoric and reality gap: a reflection. International Journal of
Educational Management 22(6): 595-602. DOI:10.1108/09513540810895471.
OECD (2006) Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2017) Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to
Primary Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264276253-en.
OECD (2020) Early Learning and Child Well-being in England. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OfSTED (2014) Are you ready? Good practice in school readiness. London: Crown copyright.
OfSTED (2015) Teaching and play in the early years – a balancing act? Manchester:
Crown copyright.
OfSTED (2017a) Bold Beginnings: The Reception curriculum in a sample of good and outstanding
primary schools. Manchester: Crown copyright.
OfSTED (2021) Assurance inspections 2021: registered early years providers Available at
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/january-2021-registered-early-years-providers
Ozga J, Baxter J, Clarke J, Grek S and Lawn M (2013) The Politics of Educational Change:
Governance and School Inspection in England and Scotland. Swiss Journal of Sociology 39(2):
205–224.
Pascal C, Bertram T and Cole- Albäck A (2017) The Hundred Review: What research tells us about
effective pedagogic practice and children’s outcomes in the Reception Year. Available at
http://earlyexcellence.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/10_100-
Review_CREC_March_2017.pdf
Pascal C, Betram, T, Cullinane C and Holt-White E (2020) COVID-19 and Social Mobility
Impact Brief #4: Early Years. Available at https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/Early-Years-Impact-Brief.pdf
Perryman J, Maguire M, Braun A and Ball S (2018) Surveillance, Governmentality and moving
the goalposts: The influence of Ofsted on the work of schools in a post-panoptic era. British
Journal of Educational Studies 66(2): 145-163. DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2017.1372560.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1999) Early Learning Goals. London:
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2000) Curriculum guidance for the foundation
stage. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2003/2004) Foundation Stage monitoring report
2003/2004. Available at https://www.qca.org.uk/160.html
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2003/2008) Early Years Foundation Stage
Profile handbook. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Roberts-Holmes G (2014) The ‘datafication’ of early years pedagogy: ‘if the teaching is good, the
data should be good and if there’s bad teaching, there is bad data. Journal of Education Policy
30(3): 302-315. DOI:10.1080/02680939.2014.924561.
School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) (1996) Nursery Education: Desirable
Learning Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Education. London: SCAA.
Shallwani S (2009) The Social Construction of School Readiness Paper. In: Annual Conference of
the Comparative and International Education Society, Charleston, USA, March 2009.
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2015) State of the Nation 2015: Social Mobility
and Child Poverty in Great Britain. London: Crown Copyright.
Sonu D and Benson J (2016) The quasi-human child: How normative conceptions of childhood
enabled neoliberal school reform in the United States. Curriculum Inquiry 46(3): 230-
247. DOI:10.1080/03626784.2016.1168259.
Standards and Testing Agency (STA) (2017) Early Years Foundation Stage Profile 2018
Handbook. London: Crown copyright.
Sylva K, Melhuish E, Sammons P, Siraj I and Taggart B (2014) Students’ educational and
developmental outcomes at age 16 Effective Pre-school, Primary and Secondary Education
(EPPSE 3-16) Project Research Report. London: Institute of Education.
UNICEF (2012) School readiness: A conceptual framework. New York: United Nations
Children’s Fund.
Wiggan J (2018) Policy Boostering the Social Impact Investment Market in the UK. Journal of
Social Policy 47(4) 721-738. doi:10.1017/S0047279418000089.
Wood E (2019) Unbalanced and unbalancing acts in the Early Years Foundation Stage: a critical
discourse analysis of policy-led evidence on teaching and play from the office for standards in
education in England (Ofsted). Education 3-13 47(7): 784-
795. DOI:10.1080/03004279.2019.1622494.
Wood E (2020) Learning, development and the early childhood curriculum: A critical discourse
analysis of the Early Years Foundation Stage in England. Journal of Early Childhood Research,
18(3): 321–336. DOI: 10.1177/1476718X20927726.
World Bank (2018) World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education's Promise.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
