Beyond the rhetoric of readiness: An exploration into school readiness from teachers’ perspectives

Sophie Cribb

BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies

Abstract

School readiness is increasingly becoming the rationale for early years provision in England, endorsed in the Early Years Foundation Stage framework (Department for Education, 2021) as a way of preparing children for their subsequent education in compulsory schooling. However, without a clear definition, school readiness remains a contested concept with disparate interpretations arising between policymakers and teachers. This study explored teachers’ perspectives of school readiness as children transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage to the National Curriculum and considered the impact of school readiness on pedagogical practices. Data were collected through surveys (n=22) and semi-structured interviews (n=4). The data exemplified the complex nature of readiness and illustrated a disparity between teachers’ perceptions of readiness and their pedagogical practices, driven by curricular expectations and assessment frameworks. The study contributes to the growing body of literature concerned with school readiness and is of particular interest to early years educators working within a framework which emphasises the notion of school readiness.

Introduction

Over recent years, school readiness has gained prominence in political discourse, progressively becoming the rationale for early years education and care (ECEC) in England (Ang, 2014; Brooks & Murray, 2018; Kay, 2018b; Moss, 2013). Featuring in several reviews (Allen, 2011; Field, 2010; Tickell, 2011) and recent iterations of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (Department for Education [DfE], 2012, 2014a, 2017a, 2021), the school readiness agenda has become a significant driver in informing education policy and practice for young children. Despite its widespread application, school readiness is plagued by definitional ambiguity and thus, disparate interpretations arise from a range of stakeholders. Previous research has highlighted the complexities of establishing a definition of school readiness as it is interpreted through different lenses (Kay, 2018b; Ofsted, 2014; Snow, 2006). This lack of consensus exemplifies how school readiness is a subjective construct formed within the stakeholder’s beliefs of children, learning and teaching, encapsulating a ‘fundamental difference in conception of the purpose of early years education’ (Bingham & Whitebread, 2012, p. 4).

This study offers important insights into teachers’ perspectives of school readiness as children transition from the EYFS to the National Curriculum. Moreover, it builds on Kay’s (2018b) recommendations to explore year one teachers’ perspectives, an underrepresented demographic within the research base. The objectives of this study are to ascertain how reception and year one teachers perceive school readiness, identifying their priorities for ensuring children’s school readiness, and to explore tensions between school readiness and early years pedagogy. The research sets out to answer the following questions:

What are teachers’ perceptions of school readiness?

What are the implications of school readiness for early years pedagogy?

Literature review

Readiness in policy framework

School readiness is a dominant feature within the EYFS, which governs early years practice and provision for children from birth to five years old (DfE, 2021). A review of the various iterations of the EYFS (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008; DfE, 2012, 2014a, 2017a, 2021) demonstrates a clear shift towards the school readiness agenda as its prominence gains leverage in progressive reforms. In the revised EYFS, the concept of school readiness permeates the document and is a continuing theme from the outset, asserting that it ‘promotes teaching and learning to ensure children’s school readiness’ (DfE, 2021, p. 5). The explicit reference to school readiness is pertinent in defining the main purpose of the reception year as preparing children for their subsequent experiences in year one. Despite there being no clear definition of readiness within the framework, the Good Level of Development (GLD) (DfE, 2022) indicator provides an assessment tool to measure children’s readiness for year one. This conception of readiness reduces the complexity of readiness to a fixed measure of skills and knowledge that a child should have acquired to successfully negotiate the transition to year one (Bingham & Whitebread, 2012; Kay, 2018b). It is contended, however, that this simplified perspective could be problematic for a significant number of children as it assumes a pre-defined standard that all children should achieve (Bingham & Whitebread, 2012; Kay, 2018a).

A neoliberal discourse of readiness

It could be argued that the dominant discourse of readiness which pervades ECEC emanates from neoliberal political discourse, ensuring that children are prepared with the essential skills and knowledge to succeed in compulsory school education (CSE) (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2017), and to contribute to an economic society (Kay, 2018a, 2021; Sims, 2017). According to the OECD (2006), this perspective is driven by governmental economic interests in reducing poverty, closing the attainment gap, and achieving greater labour market success. Within this discourse, reception classrooms are reconceptualised as a place to prepare children for CSE and to succeed within schools’ test-based culture (Moss & Cameron, 2020; Roberts-Holmes, 2019). Consequently, academic achievement becomes the driving force of school readiness, offering security to the government that children will be starting year one prepared to succeed academically (Whitebread & Bingham, 2014). Reforms of the EYFS, as constructed under a coalition government (DfE, 2012, 2014a) and a Conservative government (DfE, 2017a, 2021), emphasise this notion through an increased focus on teaching the ‘essential skills and knowledge…[to] help children to prepare for year 1’ (DfE, 2021, p. 16). Moreover, Kay (2021) asserts that the latest reform of the EYFS is pertinent in emphasising academic outcomes through refined early learning goals (ELGs) in literacy and numeracy. A significant change in the framework mirrors the language of the year one curriculum through expectations such as ‘comprehension’, ‘handwriting’, ‘transcription’ and ‘composition’ (DfE, 2021, p. 9). This construction of readiness within an academic framework holds out the promise that children are already prepared to read, write, and conform to classroom procedures upon entry to CSE (OECD, 2006; Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years [Pacey], 2013; Tactyc, 2017).

Ofsted have been instrumental in perpetuating the rhetoric of readiness that is concerned with academic outcomes. Ofsted’s Bold Beginnings report (2017) investigated the provision and curriculum in the reception year across good and outstanding primary schools, and the ‘extent to which it was preparing four- and five-year olds for their years of schooling and life ahead’ (Ofsted, 2017, p. 4). The report undoubtedly situates the reception year as a period to prepare children for the more formal learning of primary schooling (Kay, 2018a) through the narrow perception of teaching literacy and mathematics as the ‘core purpose of the reception year’ (Ofsted, 2017, p. 7). Within their research, Ofsted (2017) questioned whether the EYFS was appropriately designed to prepare pupils for year one, suggesting that the standards for literacy and mathematics were insufficient. The rhetoric of readiness as exemplified in the report conveys a strong connection between a good reception year and teaching for mathematics and literacy outcomes (Kay, 2018a). Moreover, the report emphasised how successful reception classes were ‘preparing children very effectively for mathematics in year one’ (Ofsted, 2017, p. 24) by using content from the year one curriculum, thus promoting a push down of outcomes into the reception year. Within this interpretation, it could be argued that Ofsted have discursively constructed and exacerbated the narrow perception of readiness as embodied in political discourse.

The influential power of Ofsted cannot be underestimated. The Bold Beginnings report considers the reception year to be a ‘missed opportunity’ with ‘painful and unnecessary consequences’ (Ofsted, 2017, p. 4) for many children. Such emotive language acts as a powerful catalyst in constructing the reception year as a problem space and consequently enforcing a solution that is considered good practice (Wood, 2019). As the ‘sole arbiter of quality’ (DfE, 2014b, p. 4), Ofsted maintains a disciplinary power (Hoffman, 2011) in colonising ECEC through regimented inspections, reports and surveys (Neaum, 2016; Wood, 2019), thus providing a lens in which inspectors make their judgements and influencing the everyday lives and discourses of educators.

A social and emotional perspective

In contrast, the literature base has established an alternative discourse that embodies a social pedagogic approach (Bingham & Whitebread, 2012), promoting children’s holistic development. Previous studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between children’s social and emotional proficiencies and their subsequent academic achievement (Raver & Knitze, 2002; Hartas, 2011). Contrasting with the predominance of academic readiness in political discourse, Hartas (2011) asserts that ‘the ability of young children to manage their emotions and behaviours is an important prerequisite for social adjustment and school readiness’ (p. 83). From this perspective, it is argued that social and emotional competencies provide the foundations for children to be capable of adapting to the formal requirements and expectations of the year one classroom (Thompson & Raikes, 2007), thus benefitting from the academic opportunities. The Hundred Review (Dubiel & Kilner, 2017) exemplified this notion as teachers perceived children’s learning behaviours and their ability to adapt to the expectations, routine, and culture of the school, as a core purpose of the reception year, and a fundamental aspect in preparing children for year one.

Previous research into the perspectives of teachers, parents and childcare professionals suggest that they perceived readiness within this social pedagogic model. Miller and Kehl (2019) identified that teachers and parents considered children’s social and emotional competencies as more important than children’s cognitive abilities. Similarly, Pacey (2013) established that teachers, parents, and childcare professionals believed that school readiness should be defined by social and emotional competencies such as independence, curiosity, a desire to learn and strong social skills. It is important to clarify that these studies considered school readiness as the institutional transition into reception and therefore, the findings may emphasise different priorities rather than academic outcomes. Notwithstanding this, research into the perspectives of readiness from reception to year one yielded similar results. Kay (2018b) identified that reception teachers regarded children’s dispositions for learning as important factors for school readiness, including confidence, curiosity, eagerness, and happiness. Similarly, Brooks and Murray (2018) found that teachers believed personal, social, and emotional development played a significant role in children’s school readiness, suggesting that children need to have developed proficiencies in self-help, relationships, and emotional maturity to successfully negotiate the transition to year one. Notwithstanding this, Rouse et al. (2020) found that although pre-primary teachers tended to align more within this social and emotional framework, primary teachers were less likely to consider these skills as they favoured academic knowledge, thus highlighting a dissonance between the priorities of teachers as they work within distinctly separate sectors and curriculum frameworks.

‘Schoolification’

The transition from reception to year one highlights a significant transition in children’s early educational experience, which according to Moss (2013), represents a longstanding issue in education. The literature establishes a significant discontinuity between the two curriculum frameworks which govern practice as children move from a holistic EYFS framework, to a compartmentalised and prescribed National Curriculum (Fisher, 2011; Nicholson & Hendry, 2020). Moss (2013) suggests that this fragmented relationship assumes a hierarchical position between ECEC and CSE, whereby ECEC is reduced to a subordinate role, with its purpose to prepare children for their succeeding schooling experience. ECEC pedagogies can therefore become vulnerable to more formal teaching practices, leading to what is commonly referred to as the schoolification of the early years (Bradbury, 2019; Brogaard Clausen, 2015; Brooks & Murray, 2018; Dubiel & Kilner, 2017; Moss, 2013; Moss & Cameron, 2020; OECD, 2017; Roberts-Holmes, 2019). Despite suggestions of extending ECEC practices into key stage one as a way of bridging pedagogical discontinuity (Fisher, 2011; Moss, 2013; Roberts-Holmes, 2012), the imposition of more formal learning practices have permeated the reception year as a way of readying children for their succeeding experiences in year one. This has been constructed in reception classrooms through pedagogies which align more closely with a primary model of education, emphasising teacher directed activities, academic content, and a reduction of play (OECD, 2017; Pacey, 2013).

Policy initiatives have been instrumental in advocating a push down curriculum in the reception year. Within a consultation of primary assessment, the DfE (2017b) recognised the disparity between the ELGs and the expectations of the year one curriculum. As a result, it was asserted that ‘We will ensure that the ELGs are appropriately aligned with the year 1 curriculum…and we will undertake work to strengthen the teaching of literacy and numeracy in the early years’ (DfE, 2017b, p. 6). This was further exemplified in a review of effective primary teaching practice (Keeble, 2016), which asserted that the most effective schools introduced year one approaches into reception to effectively manage the transition to year one. Despite Ofsted’s (2021) assertion that ‘Teaching should not be taken to imply a ‘top down’ or formal way of working’ (p. 28), these reviews discursively construct a pre-primary approach through the direct teaching of literacy and numeracy as a successful pedagogy in the reception year, thus creating a ‘regime of truth’ (Lewis, 2018, p. 331; Spencer-Woodley, 2013, p. 39) that pervades ECEC practice.

Teachers’ tensions

The school readiness agenda can have an influential impact on reception classrooms (Lewis, 2018), leading to what Neaum (2016) describes as a ‘troubled relationship’ (p. 245) between early years pedagogy and the political rhetoric of academic readiness. The EYFS itself is situated in a paradoxical space, advocating for a child-centred approach, yet requiring the achievement of a prescribed set of outcomes (DfE, 2021). Despite asserting that it ‘does not prescribe a particular teaching approach’ (DfE, 2021, p. 16), the EYFS recommends a greater emphasis on direct teaching to prepare children for year one (DfE, 2021), resulting in tensions between a policy that advocates school readiness, and the ideology of early years pedagogy (Bradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2018). Kay (2018b) and Wood and Chesworth (2017) suggest that these contradictions can cause uneasy pedagogies for reception teachers as they are torn between their pedagogical beliefs and the demands of the school readiness metanarrative as perpetuated in political discourse.

Further tensions arise from the increasing culture of performativity and accountability in ECEC (Roberts-Holmes, 2015). It could be suggested that the GLD indicator serves as a disciplinary mechanism (Hoffman, 2011; Lewis, 2018), whereby reception teachers are bound by the pressures to ensure that children achieve the expected outcomes. This discourse consequently challenges teachers’ pedagogical values and beliefs as they work within a framework of performativity (Ball, 2003; Ball, 2016; Roberts-Holmes & Bradbury, 2016). These tensions were exemplified in the Hundred Review, whereby reception teachers indicated that they felt increasingly pressured by the school readiness agenda to ensure children’s progress and attainment (Dubiel & Kilner, 2017). Similarly, Mitchell (2019) identified that despite their endeavours to focus on a child centred education, teachers felt pressured by the expectations to produce data, thus conforming to increased direct teaching practices so that children could achieve a GLD in literacy and numeracy. These findings highlight a significant dissonance between teachers’ pedagogical values and their classroom practices as they negotiate a prescriptive framework that endorses the academic notion of readiness.

This section has provided a summary of the literature relating to school readiness, highlighting two competing discourses and identifying how these contrasting perspectives manifest as tensions and contradictions in reception practice.

Methodology

The underpinning methodology which informs this research project is a mixed-method approach, ascertaining both qualitative and quantitative data (Biesta, 2021). This methodology embodies both an interpretivist and positivist paradigm, whereby the strengths of differing approaches are used to provide a more accurate representation of complex and non-linear research questions (Biesta, 2021; Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Despite requiring an interpretivist paradigm to explore the socially constructed nature of school readiness, numerical data can be beneficial in providing a broader insight into phenomena. Furthermore, a mixed-method approach allows for the convergence of data from different methods, thus enhancing the strength and credibility of the findings through triangulation (Denzin, 2017).

Methods

A survey was used at the preliminary stage of data collection to provide a broader perspective, and to ascertain key themes and categories of school readiness. Considering the complex nature of school readiness, the survey elicited both quantitative and qualitative data through a variety of questions. Prior to distribution, the survey was piloted with two individuals who scrutinised the format, questioning and functionality of the survey. Walker and Solsavon (2014) suggest that this can strengthen the credibility of the research and allows adjustments to be made before distribution. Based on the feedback, two questions were amended to ensure clarity for the participants. Surveys can be beneficial in reaching a wide range of respondents, thus obtaining data that represents a broader population (Mukherji & Albon, 2018). Limitations arise, however, when considering that surveys fail to elicit the complexities surrounding their contexts (Denscombe, 2010). Notwithstanding this, when used in conjunction with other methods, surveys can strengthen and support the findings of the research.

Semi-structured interviews were used as the main method within the study, ascertaining qualitative data through the perspectives of two reception and two year one teachers. Considering that school readiness is concerned with the transition to year one (DfE, 2021), it is important to ascertain the perspectives of year one teachers and their priorities for children entering their classrooms. For the aims of this research, interviews were beneficial for eliciting narrative data and thus ascertaining individual’s beliefs in greater depth (Alshenqeeti, 2014). Moreover, a semi-structured format provided the context for the researcher to direct the interview (Creswell, 2013), but also allowed flexibility to delve into issues (Mukherji & Albon, 2018). The interview questions aimed to build upon the findings from the survey data and were adapted from Kay’s (2018b) study to meet the needs of this research project. The questions were therefore internally validated from Kay’s study. To minimise interviewer bias (Guthrie, 2010), open-ended questions were used to allow the teachers to voice their perspectives, unconstrained by the influence of the researcher (Creswell, 2013).

Ethics

Prior to conducting the research, consideration was given to any ethical issues which may arise during the process. A research ethics proposal was submitted to Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU) which adhered to the principles of the university’s research ethics policy (BGU, 2019). The proposal gained approval by the university and the placement school prior to data collection. In line with ethical guidelines (British Educational Research Association, 2019; BGU, 2019), the researcher upheld the right for participants to decline or withdraw their participation in the study. Due to the confidential nature of the survey, however, withdrawal was not possible after participants had submitted their response. Preceding data collection, participants were fully informed of the study and what their participation entailed via a participant information sheet. Moreover, participants were required to give their informed consent to participate in the research. The data were stored confidentially on a password protected device in line with BGU ethics policy (2019). Participant anonymity was upheld and any personal information that could identify the participant was removed and replaced with a pseudonym.

Sample

Participants for the study were recruited via opportunity sampling (Mukherji & Albon, 2018). The surveys were distributed via email to five local schools in Lincolnshire in which a prior relationship had been established. The survey remained open for a three-week period in which 22 responses were returned for analysis. Following the surveys, interviews were conducted with two reception and two year one teachers at the placement setting, an urban primary school located in Lincoln. Participants were identified by numbers 1-22 for survey responses and by alphabetical letters for interview responses. Due to the small sample size, it is recognised that the findings may not be reliably representative of the broader population.

Findings and Discussion

The following section will present the analysis and discussion of the data to answer the following research questions:

What are teachers’ perceptions of school readiness?

What are the implications of school readiness for early years pedagogy?

The data analysis is based on 22 survey responses from reception teachers (n=10), year one teachers (n=10), and senior leadership staff (n=2), alongside interview data from two reception teachers and two year one teachers. The data were organised into common themes using axial coding.

Teachers’ perceptions of school readiness

The literature review has already recognised that there is no clear definition of school readiness (Kay, 2018b), which could be problematic for educators. In order to identify how teachers perceive school readiness, participants were asked to consider what school readiness means to them. Within the data, two important and contrasting discourses emerged that traverse both a social pedagogic model and a pre-primary approach, which will now be discussed in turn.

A social emotional perspective

The dominant theme that prevailed in the data was the importance of children’s social and emotional competencies. Aligning with a social pedagogic model (Bingham & Whitebread, 2012) and congruent with previous research (Brooks & Murray, 2018; Kay, 2018b; Miller & Kehl, 2019; Pacey, 2013; Rouse et al., 2020), the majority of responses alluded to children developing social and emotional proficiencies during their pre-school years in order to manage the expectations of the year one classroom. Within the survey, 77% of respondents (n=17) conceptualised readiness from the perspective of children’s social and emotional competencies. Aligning with the findings from Kay (2018b) and Pacey (2013), references were made to specific skills that teachers deemed important for children’s readiness, including independence (n=8), confidence (n=4), self-regulation (n=3) and the ability to form peer relationships (n=2). Additionally, 32% (n=7) of responses referred to children’s self-sufficiency in hygiene, toileting, and taking care of their own belongings. These findings suggest that teachers perceive that children need a good level of independence (Pacey, 2013) and self-help skills (Brooks & Murray, 2018) to manage the expectations of the year one classroom.

The interviews established similar findings as both reception teachers spoke of how they perceived readiness through children’s social and emotional competencies. Participant M asserted that school readiness is ‘having developed all of those skills…learning skills. So, being able to sit and listen, taking turns, understanding rules and you know, even being able to sensibly walk through the corridors.’ These sentiments are congruent with the literature which asserts that social and emotional competencies and learning behaviours are a fundamental aspect in children’s school readiness (Dubiel & Kilner, 2017), ensuring that children have acquired the necessary skills to cope with the expectations, routines, and culture of the school (Hartas, 2011; Thompson & Raikes, 2007). Similarly, Participant S articulated that she prioritised children’s learning behaviours, ‘we’d like them, obviously, to meet their early learning goals, but also, it’s more about the learning behaviours, so…developing independence, having those social skills so you can share, take turns, cope with routines.’ Despite acknowledging that the ELGs (DfE, 2021) were an indicator of children’s school readiness, it was clear that she prioritised children’s learning behaviours and their social and emotional competencies.

Similar findings emerged from the perspective of Participant K (year one) as she emphasised the importance of children’s learning behaviours:

‘learning behaviours are key really…if we’ve got the learning behaviours, we can embed everything else, we can put that academic side into place, but if they’re not sitting, they’re not listening and are distracted all the time…then it’s a battle.’

Participant K’s sentiments highlighted how she perceived academic readiness as subservient to learning behaviours. In line with the literature (Brooks & Murray, 2018; Dubiel & Kilner, 2017; Hartas, 2011; Thompson & Raikes, 2007), she also asserted that learning behaviours provided the foundations for academic learning, thus suggesting that without these behaviours, children would struggle with the academic demands of year one. It could be suggested that from her experience, if children have not developed those foundational learning behaviours, the ability to secure academic knowledge becomes more difficult. The lack of emphasis on academic knowledge contrasts with the findings from Rouse et al. (2020) which highlighted how primary teachers tended to align more within an academic discourse. Furthermore, it contests the dominant discourse of readiness which asserts that children need to have strong literacy and numeracy skills to succeed academically in year one (Ofsted, 2017).

The image of readiness as constructed by the majority of teachers in this study is in stark contrast with the narrative of readiness as presented in political discourse (DfE, 2021; Ofsted, 2017) that is concerned with academic skills and knowledge (OECD, 2017). The data pertained to themes that align predominantly with a social pedagogy (Bingham & Whitebread, 2012), with an overwhelming and clear recognition that a school ready child needs to have developed social and emotional proficiencies and the necessary learning behaviours required for the more formal environment of the year one classroom. These findings are congruent with the existing research into the perspectives of school readiness from teachers, parents, and childcare professionals (Brooks & Murray, 2018; Kay, 2018b; Miller & Kehl, 2019), signifying the importance of children’s social and emotional development. Aligning with the assertion from Hartas (2011) and Thompson and Raikes (2007), the ability for children to develop social and emotional proficiencies were seen as a significant prerequisite for school readiness, thus providing them with the foundational skills to adapt to the more formal aspects of compulsory schooling.

Academic readiness

In line with the expectations of readiness as embodied in political discourse (DfE, 2021), a small proportion of teachers alluded to academic expectations in their perspective of readiness. Within the survey, 18% (n=4) of teachers referred to school readiness as the acquisition of academic skills, considering phonetic awareness, mathematical concepts, and basic writing skills as an important factor in children’s school readiness. Within the qualitative comments derived from the survey, Participant 2 conceptualised readiness as ‘children have a basic knowledge of phonics and mathematical concepts.’

Similarly, in the interviews, Participant H (year one) spoke of the academic knowledge that she would expect a school ready child to have acquired:

‘I would, in an ideal world, expect them to be able to form letters and be able to at least write their names. With their reading, blending CVC words accurately. Maths wise, I would expect them to happily understand numbers up to 10, adding and subtracting and so on so forth.’

Considering the weighting of academic readiness as perpetuated in political discourse (DfE, 2021; Keeble, 2016; Ofsted, 2017), it was surprising to note the paucity of responses that mentioned children’s academic skills and knowledge in both the survey and interview data. Moreover, an interesting finding is that the reference to academic skills mainly derived from year one teachers. Alongside the perspective of Participant H (year one), three out of the four survey responses referring to academic readiness were from year one teachers, thus denoting a disparity between year one and reception teachers. This dissimilarity concurs with the findings from Rouse et al. (2020) which found that primary teachers focused more on academic skills, whereas pre-primary teachers emphasised children’s social and emotional development. This disparity could be problematic, considering that both parties play a significant contribution in children’s transition, yet they hold differing beliefs on what the school ready child should look like. It could be suggested that despite both reception and year one teachers working in parallel, they both operate within distinct pedagogies and cultures, therefore resulting in differing expectations. Although there is a dearth of research into the perspectives of year one teachers, a possible explanation could be that teachers are working within schools’ test-based culture (Moss & Cameron, 2020; Roberts-Holmes, 2019), and therefore may feel bound by measures of accountability (Roberts-Holmes, 2015) to ensure children’s academic progress.

Impact of school readiness on pedagogy

The data highlighted a dissonance between the pedagogical approaches of the EYFS and the National Curriculum, with 73% of survey respondents (n=16) stating that they perceived tensions between the two curriculum frameworks. Aligning with the literature which identifies a pedagogical discontinuity between the EYFS and the National Curriculum (Fisher, 2011; Moss, 2013; Nicholson & Hendry, 2020), the teachers spoke of the differing demands and expectations of the curriculum frameworks. Participant 4 stated, ‘A lot of the time the EYFS does not sit in line with the National Curriculum. EYFS brings learning in a fun way. The National Curriculum tends to be stricter and gets bums on seats.’ Similarly, the interviews echoed these tensions as the teachers discussed the discontinuity between the curriculum frameworks. Supporting Moss’ (2013) assertion that the transition to year one can be problematic, Participant H (year one) stated that the transition to year one was a ‘tricky one’, as children transition from a play based framework to a more structured curriculum. Additionally, Participant S acknowledged the disjuncture in terms of academic demands, ‘there is a big change from foundation stage to year one, in terms of the curriculum and the demands…the academic demands. When they go to year one it’s all lessons, lessons, lessons.’ These findings highlight how a significant proportion of teachers perceive tensions between the two curriculum frameworks, in particular the pedagogical approaches and the academic expectations of the year one curriculum.

Pertaining to notions of schoolification in the reception year, the findings from the data indicated how reception pedagogies became more formalised throughout the year. Survey participants were asked what percentage of direct teaching they delivered throughout the year. Due to the nature of this question, only reception teachers’ responses are included in this analysis (n=10). Within the autumn term, 80% of respondents (n=8) stated that their direct teaching time was between 20-40%, and a surprising finding was that 20% (n=2) of teachers stated that their direct teaching time was between 80-100%. The limitations of the survey, however, meant that further investigation could not be obtained to establish the reason for this. In contrast, the summer term became more formalised as 30% of respondents (n=3) stated that their direct teaching time rose to 40-60%, 50% (n=5) stated 60-80%, and 20% (n=2) stated 80-100%. Although the survey could not elicit a depth of insight into how readiness was constructed in the reception classroom, the quantitative findings denote an increasing trend in direct teaching practices over the academic year. This was exemplified by Participant 3 who asserted that ‘direct teaching is gradually increased over the year to prepare children for year 1.’ The data from the interviews mirrored these findings. Participant S commented on how direct teaching was increased throughout the year, ‘In September, phonics is the only thing we do, and it’s 5-10 minutes…as you can see now, phonics is about 50 minutes. We ramp it up towards the end of the year.’ Additionally, Participant M alluded to an increase in academic learning, whereby children are gradually introduced to more ‘key stage one type of things’ through increased writing tasks and exposure to more complex vocabulary to align ‘more towards the learning they’re going to be doing in year one.’ These practices are in line with the expectations of the EYFS, in which ‘there should be a greater focus on teaching the essential skills and knowledge in the specific areas of learning’ (DfE, 2021, p. 16).

The findings from the interviews highlighted how reception pedagogies became increasingly formalised throughout the year, with an intensified focus on direct teaching to prepare children for year one. It became evident how these practices were influenced by policy framework and a push down of academic content in the reception year. Participant S spoke about the pressures of the National Curriculum filtering into reception practice through the ‘emphasis on daily phonics, daily maths…those kinds of things.’ Similarly, Participant M asserted that the outcomes for children in reception were mirroring the expectations of the year one curriculum, ‘these new [ELGs], they’ve managed to bring a lot of targets I guess down from year one into reception, like number bonds to 10…things like that.’ These sentiments gave prominence to the imposition of increased academic expectations in reception, aligning with the assertion that the reception year has become vulnerable to processes of schoolification (Bradbury, 2019; Brogaard Clausen, 2015; Brooks & Murray, 2018; Moss & Cameron, 2020; OECD, 2017). The practices as exemplified in the data align with the expectations of the EYFS, in which children’s readiness is promoted through increased teaching across the specific areas of learning (DfE, 2021), thus highlighting how the political discourse produces a power that shapes and influences classroom pedagogies (Lewis, 2018).

Teachers’ tensions

The interviews indicated a dissonance between the teachers’ personal philosophies and their practices. The findings from the interview suggested that teachers have little autonomy in their pedagogical practices. Discussing the increasing formal pedagogies permeating her practice, Participant S delivered a powerful message in asserting ‘we don’t really have a choice.’ This sentiment mirrors the findings from Roberts-Holmes (2015), highlighting the increasing governance of political discourse on teachers’ practices as they work within a ‘performative culture of accountability’ (Roberts-Holmes & Bradbury, 2016, p. 600), bound by the expectations of the EYFS (DfE, 2021) and ensuring that children achieve a GLD (DfE, 2022). Aligning with Lewis’ (2018) assertion that political discourse acts as a ‘regime of truth about what constitutes effective pedagogical practice’ (p. 331), it could be pertinent to suggest that policy levers exert control over teachers’ pedagogical practices, thus leaving them with little choice as to how they construct pedagogical practices in their classrooms.

Additionally, the interviews gave rise to the ‘troubled relationship’ (Neaum, 2016, p. 245) between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and the political rhetoric of academic readiness. In the interviews, Participant M voiced concern about a government-initiated maths mastery scheme that she was expected to deliver, commenting on how the approach imitated a year one pedagogy, ‘It takes away that exploration of maths. It’s very…it’s very you sit and listen, I’m speaking, you listen…lots of slides on the board. It’s not very early years.’ Within the sentiments there was a clear expression of sadness that the focus on academic knowledge, to prepare children for year one, was taking precedence over children’s play and experiential learning. Aligning with the findings from Mitchell (2019) and Kay (2018b), there appeared to be a dissonance between the teacher’s deeply held values of ECEC pedagogy and the expectations to deliver the scheme. Intensifying these expectations, Participant M referred to the school’s recent Ofsted visit, whereby the inspectors applauded their implementation of the scheme, suggesting that it was a good way to ensure children’s mathematical progress. Considering that Ofsted holds a uniquely powerful position of governance (Neaum, 2016; Wood, 2019), and a disciplinary power (Hoffman, 2011) through regimented inspections and assessments, their comments further reinforced the expectations to conform to these pedagogical practices. It could be suggested that this powerful influence consequently made it challenging for the teachers to contest these practices.

Similar tensions were identified in the interview with Participant S as she suggested that the academic demands went against what she believed was developmentally appropriate practice. Referring to the writing ELGs, in which children are expected to ‘write simple phrases and sentences that can be read by others’ (DfE, 2021, p. 13), Participant S asserted, ‘if a child isn’t developmentally ready to hold a pencil…they physically haven’t developed the bones in their fingers to hold a pencil, then they are physically not able to…but not only do they have to hold a pencil, they have to write in full sentences.’ Concurring with the literature, the interview indicated tensions between the teacher’s pedagogical beliefs and their practices as they work within a framework which promotes academic expectations (Kay, 2018b; Mitchell, 2019; Wood & Chesworth, 2017). Although the teacher held firm beliefs about developmentally appropriate practice, these were at odds with their classroom practices as they adopted more formal methods of instruction to satisfy the requirements of the ELGs and to achieve a GLD (DfE, 2022). From this perspective, it could be argued that the GLD acted as a disciplinary mechanism (Hoffman, 2011), consequently challenging and shaping the teachers’ pedagogies as they work within a framework that emphasises performativity and accountability (Roberts-Holmes, 2015).

In addition to the external conflict between teachers’ beliefs and political discourse, the data gave prominence to internal tensions within the setting as a discord in pedagogical beliefs between the reception and year one teachers arose. In line with the literature which advocates for an extension of ECEC practices (Fisher, 2011; Moss, 2013; Roberts-Holmes, 2012), the reception teachers suggested that they would like to see an extension of the EYFS and play based provision into key stage one. Participant S asserted ‘If I had my way, I would have an early years type curriculum going into year one.’ In contrast, Participant H, the year one teacher, advocated for a more formalised approach in reception to prepare children for year one:

‘If I were an EYFS teacher, I would want, towards the end of the year, a more formal structure. I feel in some respects that there is too much free play time, choosing time, and I get the point, I understand, but to go from all to nothing, that’s half the battle.’

It was evident that there was a disjuncture between the pedagogical beliefs of the reception and year one teachers, underpinning their beliefs and purpose of the reception year. Whereas the reception teachers held strong play based and child centred values, the year one teacher’s sentiments embraced a hierarchical position, whereby ECEC assumes a subordinate role to compulsory schooling (Moss, 2013), with a focus on preparing them for the formalities of year one. The explicit references to ‘If I had my way’ and ‘If I were an EYFS teacher’ were pertinent in highlighting the disparity between their beliefs as they both asserted that if they had a choice, they would do things differently. Considering that both reception and year one teachers play a fundamental role in children’s transition to year one, a lack of cohesion could be problematic as teachers on either side of the transition hold very different views on how readiness should be constructed.

Conclusion

This study explored the concept of school readiness from reception and year one teachers’ perspectives. The study identified how dominant narratives of readiness are perpetuated through political discourse and are presented as a ‘regime of truth’ (Lewis, 2018, p. 331; Spencer-Woodley, 2013, p. 39), exerting an influence on pedagogical practices in the reception year. The findings from the study exemplified a dissonance between the construction of readiness as presented in political discourse and teachers’ perceptions, which predominantly aligned with a social pedagogic model, valuing children’s social and emotional competencies.

The study also aimed to identify how school readiness may have implications for ECEC pedagogy. The findings suggest that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were constrained by the dominant discourse of readiness, resulting in an increased focus on direct teaching to achieve academic outcomes. The school readiness agenda can therefore be problematic for teachers’ autonomy as they are working within a framework of increased accountability and performativity, thus consequently placing them under pressure to undertake pedagogical practices that conflict with their beliefs and values of ECEC. It is recommended that there should be a greater coherence amongst policymakers and teachers, whereby policymakers should consider the voices and concerns of teachers working within the EYFS framework. Moreover, based on the findings from the research which indicated a disparity between the pedagogical beliefs of the reception and year one teachers, it is recommended that reception and year one teachers gain an insight into each other’s practices and some of the challenges therein, to develop a shared and cohesive vision of school readiness.

This study makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature on school readiness by exploring teachers’ experiences and the impact that school readiness has on their practice. Moreover, it has considered the perspective of readiness from year one teachers who remain a largely underrepresented demographic in the research base. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that due to the constraints of this study, only a small sample size could be obtained and therefore, no claims of generalisability are made. Further research could be undertaken to strengthen these findings and provide further insight into the year one perspective.

References

Allen, G. (2011). Early intervention: The next steps. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284086/early-intervention-next-steps2.pdf

Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review. English Linguistic Research, 3(1), 39-45. https://dx.doi.org/10.5430/elr.v3n1p39

Ang, L. (2014). Preschool or prepschool? Rethinking the role of early years education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, (15)2, 185-199. https://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2014.15.2.185

Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065

Ball, S. J. (2016). Subjectivity as a Site of Struggle: Refusing Neoliberalism?. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(8), 1129–1146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1044072

Biesta, G. (2021). Mixed methods. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L. Hedges, & L. Ashley, (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies in education (pp. 147-152). SAGE.

Bingham, S., & Whitebread, D. (2012). School readiness. A critical review of perspectives and evidence. https://www.eymatters.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Bingham-and-Whitebread-2012.pdf

Bishop Grosseteste University. (2019). Research Ethics Policy. Bishop Grosseteste University. https://www.bishopg.ac.uk/student/research/research-ethics-and-integrity

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1511577

Bradbury, A., & Roberts-Holmes, G. (2018). The datafication of primary and early years education. Routledge.

British Educational Research Association. (2019). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018-online#consent

Brogaard Clausen, S. (2015). Schoolification or early years democracy? A cross-curricular perspective from Denmark and England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(4), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949115616327

Brooks, E., & Murray, J. (2018). Ready, steady, learn: school readiness and children’s voices in English early childhood settings. Education 3-13, 46(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1204335

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: research methods for small social scale research projects. Open University Press.

Denzin, N. (2017). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Routledge.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2008). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6413/7/statutory-framework_Redacted.pdf

Department for Education. (2012). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2014/05/eyfs_statutory_framework_march_2012.pdf

Department for Education. (2014a). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299391/DFE-00337-2014.pdf

Department for Education. (2014b). Early education and childcare Statutory guidance for local authorities. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298754/2014_Draft_Statutory_Guidance.pdf

Department for Education. (2017a). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2017/03/EYFS_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf?bcsi_scan_05c10f12792177b7=7jwwdOp/Txjuwsx0wZTZ9LUVSTMaAAAAdFVpDw==&bcsi_scan_filename=EYFS_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf

Department for Education. (2017b). Primary assessment in England: Government consultation response. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644871/Primary_assessment_consultation_response.pdf

Department for Education. (2022). Early years foundation stage profile. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1024319/Early_years_foundation_stage_profile_handbook_2022.pdf

Dubiel, J., & Kilner, D. (2017). Teaching four & five year olds: The hundred review of the reception year in England. https://earlyexcellence.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/EX_TheHundredReview_Report_.pdf

Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110120090128/http://povertyreview.independent.gov.uk/media/20254/poverty-report.pdf

Fisher, J. (2011). Building on the Early Years Foundation Stage: Developing good practice for transition into Key Stage 1. Early Year: an International Journal of Research and Development, 31(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2010.512557

Guthrie, G. (2010). Basic research methods: An entry to social science research. SAGE.

Hartas, D. (2011). Children’s language and behavioural, social and emotional difficulties and prosocial behaviour during the toddler years and at school entry. British Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2011.00507.x

Hoffman, M. (2011). Disciplinary power. In D. Taylor. (Ed.), Michel Foucault: key concepts. Routledge.

Kay, L. (2018a). Bold Beginnings and the Rhetoric of ‘School Readiness’. Forum, 60(3), 327-336. https://dx.doi.org/10.15730/forum.2018.60.3.327

Kay, L. (2018b). School readiness: a culture of compliance? PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/20433/1/school_readiness.pdf

Kay, L. (2021). Standing on formality. Early Years Educator, 22(10), 28-30. https://doi.org/10.12968/eyed.2021.22.10.28

Keeble, R. (2016). Effective primary teaching practice. https://tscouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Effective-primary-teaching-practice-2016-report-web.pdf

Lewis, Z. (2018). Policy and the image of the child: a critical analysis of drivers and levers in English early years curriculum policy. Early Years, 41(4), 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2018.1501552

Miller, M., & Kehl, L. (2019). Comparing Parents’ and Teachers’ Rank-Ordered Importance of Early School Readiness Characteristics. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00938-4

Mitchell, E. (2019). A small-scale exploratory study of educator’s perceptions and expectations of summer-born children in the reception classes of three English primary academies and the strategies used to support them. Education 3-13, 47(2), 205-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1424919

Moss, P. (2013). Early childhood and compulsory education: reconceptualising the relationship. Routledge.

Moss, P., & Cameron, C. (2020). The state we’re in. In C. Cameron, & P. Moss. (Eds.), Transforming early childhood in England (pp.1-18). UCL Press.

Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2018). Research methods in early childhood: An introductory guide (3rd ed.). SAGE

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1205970

Nicholson, P., & Hendry, H. (2020). A pedagogical meeting place or a problem space? Extending play-based pedagogy in Year One. Education 3-13, 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1840608

Ofsted. (2014). Are you ready? Good practice in school readiness. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418819/Are_you_ready_Good_practice_in_school_readiness.pdf

Ofsted. (2017). Bold beginnings: The reception curriculum in a sample of good and outstanding primary schools. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/663560/28933_Ofsted_-_Early_Years_Curriculum_Report_-_Accessible.pdf

Ofsted. (2021). Early years inspection handbook for Ofsted-registered provision. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-inspection-handbook-eif/early-years-inspection-handbook-for-ofsted-registered-provision-for-september-2021

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Starting strong II: early childhood education and care. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/startingstrongiiearlychildhoodeducationandcare.htm

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Starting strong V. Transitions from early childhood education and care to primary education. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en

Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research. SAGE.

Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years. (2013). What does “school ready” really mean? https://www.pacey.org.uk/Pacey/media/Website-files/school%20ready/School-Ready-Report.pdf

Raver, C. C., & Knitze, J. (2002). Ready to Enter: What Research Tells Policymakers About Strategies to Promote Social and Emotional School Readiness Among Three- and Four-Year-Old Children. https://doi.org/10.7916/D82V2QVX

Roberts-Holmes, G. (2012). ‘It’s the bread and butter of our practice’: experiencing the Early Years Foundation Stage. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20(1), 30-42, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.664473

Roberts-Holmes, G. (2015). 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), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.924561

Roberts-Holmes, G. (2019). ‘School readiness, governance and early years ability grouping’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 22(3), 244-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949119863128

Roberts-Holmes, G., & Bradbury, A. (2016). Governance, accountability and the datafication of early years education in England. British Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 600-613. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3221

Rouse, E., Nicholas, M., & Garner, R. (2020). School readiness- what does this mean? Educators’ perceptions using a cross sector comparison. International Journal of Early Years Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1733938

Sims, M. (2017). Neoliberalism and early childhood. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1365411

Snow, K. L. (2006). Measuring School Readiness: Conceptual and Practical Considerations. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 7-41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_2

Spencer-Woodley, L. (2013). Accountability- tensions and challenges. In Z. Kingdon. Early years policy: the impact on practice. Routledge.

Tactyc. (2017). Bald beginnings. A response to Ofsted’s (2017) report, Bold beginnings: The reception curriculum in a sample of good and outstanding primary schools. https://tactyc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Bold-Beginnings-TACTYC-response-FINAL-09.12.17.pdf

Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, A.H. (2007). The social and emotional foundations of school readiness. In R. K. Kaufmann & J. Knitzer (Eds.), Social and emotional health in early childhood (pp. 13-35). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Tickell, C. (2011). The early years: foundations for life, health and learning. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/180919/DFE-00177-2011.pdf

Walker, R., & Solvason, C. (2014). Success with your early years research project. SAGE.

Whitebread, D., & Bingham, S. (2014). School readiness: starting age, cohorts and transitions in the early years. In J. Moyles, J. Georgeson, & J. Payler. (Eds.), Early years foundations: critical issues. Open University Press.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1622494

Wood, E., & Chesworth, L. (2017). Play and pedagogy. BERA Bites issue 1: Early Childhood. British Educational Research Association. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/issue-1- early-childhood