England’s Foundation Stage Child in a Shifting World: Troubling Grids of Reasoning of “Children with Potential,” “Normalization,” and “Value-Added” Curriculum

  • Ruth Lynn Peach
Part of the Critical Cultural Studies of Childhood book series (CCSC)


In many countries national dialogues about education for “early childhood” or “early years” children have become a priority. These dialogues ask important questions about the quality of curriculum, the preparation of practitioners, the types and levels of funding, the value of education for younger children, and the prioritization of programs for all young children or solely for children “at risk.” Advocates for young children have long urged that all of these questions be considered and many nations have recently implemented policies that vary widely in their national responses to these questions and commitment to early childhood learning. England has chosen intriguing solutions to these questions and this chapter will analyze and critique a few of these ideas while looking at points of rupture in discourses about young children as citizens and proto-citizens.


Young Child Human Capital Early Childhood Education Policy Early Childhood Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, B. (2001). In perpetual motion: Theories of power, educational history, and the child. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, W., & Schweinhart, L. (1996). Lives in the balance: Age-27 benefit-cost analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, G. (1964, 1993 3rd ed.). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bloch, M. (1987). Becoming scientific and professional: Historical perspectives on the aims of early education and child care. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for an American institution. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bloch, M. (2003). Global/local analyses of the construction of “family-child welfare.” In M. Bloch, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist, & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families & education: Restructuring the welfare state (pp. 195–230). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Bloch, M., & Popkewitz, T. (2000). Constructing the parent, teacher and child: Discourses on development. In L. D. Soto (Ed.), The Politics of Early Childhood Education (pp. 7–33). Peter Lang Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1980). Under five in Britain. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Burman, E. (2008). Developments: Child, image, nation. East Sussex: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Canella, G. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice & revolution. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G. (1986, 1988). Foucault. S. Hand (Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Early years foundation stage framework. Retrieved on April 15, 2013, from
  14. Education Act 2002. (2002). Chapter 32. London: The Parliamentary Bookshop.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, M. Foucault, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 87–105). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goodfellow, J. (2005). Market childcare: Preliminary observations of the “property view” of the child. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 54–65. Symposium Journals. Retrieved on July 15, 2011, from Scholar
  17. Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatch, J. (2002). Accountability shovedown: Resisting the standards movement in early childhood education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mallory, B., & New, R. (1994). Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Moss, P. (2007, June). Meetings across the paradigmatic divide. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(3), 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moss, P. (2008a, January 24). Beyond childcare, markets and technical practice—repoliticising early childhood. In Proceedings of CSER Early Childhood Care and Education Seminar Series 2 (pp. 5–14). Centre for Social and Educational Research, Dublin.Google Scholar
  22. Moss, P. (2008b, August). Toward a new public education: Making globalization work for us all. Child Development Perspectives. Child Development Perspectives, 2(2), 114–119. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00051.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moss, P., & Penn, H. (Eds.). (1996). Transforming nursery education. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. OECD. (2000). Country note: Early childhood education and care policy in the United Kingdom. Retrieved on February 23, 2002, from Scholar
  25. OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early childhood education and care. Retrieved on May 26, 2012, from Scholar
  26. O’Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault (Core cultural theorists series). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2000). Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage. London: QCA.Google Scholar
  28. QCA. (2001). Planning for learning in the foundation stage. London: QCA.Google Scholar
  29. Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  30. Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Walkerdine, V. (1998). Daddy’s girl: Young girls and popular culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Theodora Lightfoot-Rueda and Ruth Lynn Peach 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Lynn Peach

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations