View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Gender as an Issue of Curricular (In)Justice: A Review of National Early Childhood Education Curriculum Documents in England from 1996 to 2021

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gender as an Issue of Curricular (In)Justice: A Review of National Early Childhood Education Curriculum Documents in England from 1996 to 2021
Language: English
Authors: Rachel Lehner-Mear (ORCID 0000-0002-0129-9935), Kerryn Dixon (ORCID 0000-0003-4748-6338), Yuwei Xu (ORCID 0000-0002-6477-2857), Catherine Gripton (ORCID 0000-0003-1832-9480), Lucy Cooker
Source: Curriculum Journal. 2026 37(1):88-106.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Sex, Sex Fairness, Early Childhood Education, National Curriculum, Educational Policy, Disproportionate Representation, Literature Reviews, Power Structure, Social Justice
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
DOI: 10.1002/curj.326
ISSN: 0958-5176
1469-3704
Abstract: Abstract In England, gender is currently a controversial issue, with debates in social and political spheres increasingly impacting educational policy. Simultaneously, scholarship on gender in Early Childhood Education (ECE) advocates more gender-sensitive pedagogies to disrupt restrictive and essentialised views. We use Connell's principles of curricular justice to analyse gender's position in England's birth-to-five policies. Taking as the lynchpin of our analysis Connell's third principle, the historical production of equality, we trace gender's representation in 14 birth-to-five statutory and non-statutory curriculum documents from 1996 to 2021, identifying the extent to which these curricula support practitioners to teach in just and equitable ways. A picture of curricular injustice becomes evident. Our review highlights how changes in the broader political system result in three shifts in gender's curricular positioning (defined as gender foundations; gender awareness; gender decline) that ultimately fail the needs of the least advantaged and inhibit children's preparation for democratic participation in society. The ideological (re)production of gender (in)justice in the curricula occurs, firstly, through limited references to gender, fluctuations in gender's use over time and gender's siloing in non-statutory statements. Secondly, conceptual confusion, the use of binary constructs and a reliance on both legal non-discrimination and an equal opportunity framing restrict gender justice. This review exposes the ways in which the reproduction of social power in the ECE curriculum reinforces gender inequalities, thus raising questions about the curriculum's suitability for supporting socially just, gender-sensitive pedagogy in ECE. We conclude that now is the time for a renewal of curricular justice.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1493864
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFdRx3VqqKT3dO-wxyYm53pAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDM-IPC9WK19zIRm7yQIBEICBmw09Sj0Dr5_aqVtTHzXQuebT7jsivG9tDkb2RYqQ92mDMWdTNcG6s-Hi45tP2W70ii4dcqvsKS3vfkt2s1TO06wiBe4b5IEvnpC-XRr6PzCaJdGqpyvGvIFwwDpRb8tdxFFZoJbRt8H9leYE66-FphViPBZtaUMtbshr0jvNnXiiURZXfs1qheSfvKJBbFAZyggX8GU5XpmCUXX8
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0190860288;5az01mar.26;2026Jan16.04:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0190860288-1">Gender as an issue of curricular (in)justice: A review of national early childhood education curriculum documents in England from 1996 to 2021 </title> <p>In England, gender is currently a controversial issue, with debates in social and political spheres increasingly impacting educational policy. Simultaneously, scholarship on gender in Early Childhood Education (ECE) advocates more gender‐sensitive pedagogies to disrupt restrictive and essentialised views. We use Connell's principles of curricular justice to analyse gender's position in England's birth‐to‐five policies. Taking as the lynchpin of our analysis Connell's third principle, the historical production of equality, we trace gender's representation in 14 birth‐to‐five statutory and non‐statutory curriculum documents from 1996 to 2021, identifying the extent to which these curricula support practitioners to teach in just and equitable ways. A picture of curricular injustice becomes evident. Our review highlights how changes in the broader political system result in three shifts in gender's curricular positioning (defined as gender foundations; gender awareness; gender decline) that ultimately fail the needs of the least advantaged and inhibit children's preparation for democratic participation in society. The ideological (re)production of gender (in)justice in the curricula occurs, firstly, through limited references to gender, fluctuations in gender's use over time and gender's siloing in non‐statutory statements. Secondly, conceptual confusion, the use of binary constructs and a reliance on both legal non‐discrimination and an equal opportunity framing restrict gender justice. This review exposes the ways in which the reproduction of social power in the ECE curriculum reinforces gender inequalities, thus raising questions about the curriculum's suitability for supporting socially just, gender‐sensitive pedagogy in ECE. We conclude that now is the time for a renewal of curricular justice.</p> <p>Keywords: curricular justice; curriculum review; early childhood education; gender justice</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Curriculum documents provide the parameters within which educators, including Early Childhood Education (ECE) practitioners,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] work. These documents are not neutral; they are shaped by and reflect the times in which they are written. As such, they often produce and reproduce social inequalities, even when claiming to be underpinned by principles of social justice. We draw on Raewyn Connell's interconnected principles of curricular justice to review England's national curriculum guidance documents for birth to five years (first phase of education), over a 25‐year period (1996–2021). Connell's third principle of curricular justice, the historical production of inequality, operates as a lynchpin for reviewing how gender is represented from 1996 to 2021 to explore the ways in which gender equality is reflected over time and the insights this affords about curricular justice for young children in England.</p> <p>The period under review sees ECE emerge as a policy priority, with the inception of a national ECE framework for England and considerable policymaking. It is tempting to believe that in an under‐developed policy space, ECE policies would be refined and improved over time. However, conflicting policy rationales have driven ECE policymaking (Lloyd, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>]; Wood, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref3">48</reflink>]). Establishing curriculum requirements affects practitioners' work. In this special issue's call for papers, the editors make the case that 'a socially just curriculum requires teachers who are knowledgeable about curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, reject deficit constructions of young people and have deep commitments to and understandings of social justice' (Riddle et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref4">41</reflink>]). The value of this review is twofold – it exposes the ways in which social power is entrenched in curriculum and reinforces (gender) inequalities (Riddle et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref5">40</reflink>]) and raises questions about the extent to which national guidance on curricula supports practitioners to teach in just and equitable ways.</p> <p>In the current context in England, gender is an increasingly controversial issue. Proposed curriculum changes by the Conservative government, limiting how educators teach about gender identity (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref6">18</reflink>]), caused contention in the run‐up to the 2024 elections (see Evans, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>]). This is despite international calls for more gender‐sensitive pedagogies (Warin, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref8">45</reflink>]; Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref9">51</reflink>]). Such debates affect public opinion, filter into policy discourses and shape all educators' work. The reality is that ECE practitioners will encounter issues of gender (including gender identities, gendered norms and gender stereotypes) in their practice. Contiguous to this, Britain's 2010 Equality Act legally binds educators to uphold non‐discriminatory practices.</p> <p>Early childhood is a critical time where gender relations and gender norms are reproduced (Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref10">51</reflink>]) with longstanding social effects. ECE plays a fundamental role in shaping life chances and offers a potential pathway to ameliorating persistent social inequalities (Sylva, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref11">43</reflink>]). However, returning to the editors' point about needing knowledgeable teachers with socially just pedagogies, there is concern that ECE practitioner training in the UK, including England, insufficiently focuses on challenging gender stereotypes (Fawcett Society, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]). It cannot be assumed that practitioners have a strong social justice orientation or the ability to teach in ways that overturn societal inequalities. It is likely that practitioners' gender practice draws from gender's positioning in national curriculum documents. With ECE practitioners also working in a largely self‐reproducing system (Moss, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]), practices are passed on from one generation of practitioners to the next and shaped by policy expectations. This is further amplified because, historically, limited practitioner training and the sector's high attrition rates (Nutbrown, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>]) make learning from colleagues and reliance on published documents even more important.</p> <p>We recognise that focusing on one characteristic such as gender does not account for the complex operation of privilege or disadvantage and their effects on the intersectional identity positions of real individuals. Indeed, we acknowledge Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]) own call for multiple counter‐hegemonic projects. However, we believe that focusing on the inscription of gender in curriculum documents provides insights into curricular (in)justice more generally. We next outline Connell's principles of curricular justice, our stance on gender, describe the policy context in brief, present our methods and our review.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-3">CONNELL'S NOTION OF CURRICULAR JUSTICE</hd> <p>According to Connell ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>], p. 134), equality at the individual level is 'the condition, not the goal, of a just <emph>social order</emph>'. In education, this raises questions about how justice is distributed and highlights the framework in which this is achieved. For Connell ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]), the focus should not only be on curriculum content, but on the way individual pupils are included and excluded by curricula. She states, 'curriculum knowledge does not float about the school as a kind of academic ectoplasm, but is embodied in classroom and whole‐school practices' (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>], p.137). Curriculum ideas become embedded within educators' pedagogic work. A focus on how curriculum systems produce social justice is important, since all educators work in contexts of varied inequality (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]). In considering the structures which (re)produce curricular justice, Connell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]) describes three interconnected principles.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-4">The interests of the least advantaged</hd> <p>In principle one, drawing on Rawls' work on social justice, Connell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>], p. 44) argues that education should begin from the standpoint of the least advantaged, leading her to the notion of a 'counter‐hegemonic curriculum' which explicitly 'embod[ies] the interests and perspectives of the least advantaged'. Connell warns that social justice is not met by the promotion of 'curriculum ghettos' wherein separate and special curricula operate alongside the hegemonic curriculum. Instead, for justice to be attained, the mainstream curriculum should be reconstructed to reflect the needs of the marginalised. We argue that hegemonic curricula are also heteronormative, often manifesting forms of hegemonic masculinity. Moreover, Connell recognises that complex patterns of inequality require counter‐hegemonic curricular projects, which collectively bring social justice. This principle also helps us identify <emph>un</emph>just curricula: when the interests of the least advantaged are denied by curricula, <emph>in</emph>justice occurs.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-5">Participation and common schooling</hd> <p>The second principle, participation and common schooling, is underpinned by the notion that full and active participation in a democracy requires the knowledge and skills necessary for decision‐making.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>] Connell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref23">5</reflink>]) stresses that democratic decision‐making requires <emph>all</emph> citizens' participation which includes the least advantaged (Mills et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]). This involves an understanding of cultural differences and perspectives, rather than curricula that reflect a 'single socially dominant' viewpoint (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>], p.46) or which include direct or indirect practices that give some groups greater decision‐making power. To achieve democratic participation, Connell proposes a common curriculum – a curriculum designed with student experiences and lifeworlds in mind (Riddle et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]). This necessitates not only consideration of what and whose knowledges are <emph>distributed</emph>, but the ways in which differences are <emph>recognised</emph> and <emph>represented</emph> also matter (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]; Riddle et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref28">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-6">The historical production of equality</hd> <p>Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]) third principle underlines the importance of recognising how (in)equalities are produced and reproduced over time. Integral to this principle is the point that (in)equality is not fixed, but in flux. Experiences of curricular justice alter over time according to social relations within systems. As such, '[t]he criterion of curricular justice is the tendency of an educational strategy to produce more equality in the whole set of social relations to which the educational system is linked' (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>], p.47). This idea of flux points us towards a consideration of how shifts in the broader educational or political system which define curricula may reinforce the needs not of the least advantaged (principle 1), nor promote participative, common schooling (principle 2), but may result in a 'codification of culture' which reinforces the position of the most powerful (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>], p. 50).</p> <p>Taking Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref32">6</reflink>], p. 681) proposition that 'mechanisms of inequality' change over time, we understand gender's position as of contemporary concern. Connell's third principle provides a lens to consider gender (in)justice in ECE curricula in England, and through which we aim to understand how social (in)justice is reproduced within national curricula over time.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-7">GENDER</hd> <p>Contemporary theorisations of gender have largely moved away from essentialising gender in fixed categories defining what individuals can or cannot do according to their biological sex – arguing that gender is socially constructed (e.g. Connell & Pearse, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>]). Gender scholarship recognises that essentialised gender ideologies are expressed through explicit and implicit curricula in education systems (Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref34">49</reflink>]). However, gender scholarship is not necessarily reflected in public understanding, including among practitioners working in educational contexts (Sullivan et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>]; Wilkinson & Warin, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref36">47</reflink>]) and policymakers who shape their practice.</p> <p>Politicised constructions of gender‐as‐binary in ECE policies reproduce heteronormative gender constructions that disadvantage and marginalise children who do not conform to traditional gender norms (Bhana et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>]). Three English studies demonstrate the impact of binary gender stereotypes in education. Donovan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref38">25</reflink>]) reveal how young people's gender and sexuality are regulated by essentialised heteronormative practices. Cousins ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]) highlights how gendered discourses affect workforce and workplace practices through the disproportionate fast‐tracking of male primary school teachers into management positions. Josephidou ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]) reports that deeply entrenched gender discourses affect practitioners' understandings of play.</p> <p>There is a need, in ECE, for gender‐sensitive and gender‐flexible pedagogies that disrupt essentialist views (Warin, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref41">45</reflink>]; Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref42">51</reflink>]). Gender‐sensitive pedagogies require practitioners' responsiveness and willingness to challenge gender norms and stereotypes, including reflection on their own gendered subjectivities. Gender‐flexible pedagogies incorporate explicit gender teaching, with practitioners modelling alternatives to gender stereotypes that disrupt heteronormative masculinity and femininity. These pedagogies highlight not just what is taught but how it is taught (Warin & Adriany, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-8">ENGLAND'S ECE POLICY CONTEXT</hd> <p>In England, education from birth to five ('early years') operates as a distinct educational phase covering home‐ and group‐based, for‐profit and not‐for‐profit educational provision. This phase of ECE incorporates the first year of statutory schooling. Separate from the statutory national curriculum for 5–16‐year‐olds (inception in 1988), the education of children under five was determined at a local level until 1996. The period under review was a period of rapid change for birth‐to‐five education with significant policy development. These changes evidence the broader political context and successive governments' policymaking which reflect ideological positions and responses to societal needs. The first non‐statutory national framework offering curriculum guidance for the early years, <emph>Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning</emph> (Department for Education and Employment, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]), was introduced by the Conservative government in 1996. While there was some attention on early childhood by this government, overall ECE policy was largely neglected (Moss, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Over the next 13 years (1997–2010), the Labour government made ECE a policy priority. Early intervention was viewed as a means to increase employment and reduce poverty (Moss, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref46">37</reflink>]), leading to an expansion of services aimed to improve access and quality of early education. <emph>Desirable Outcomes</emph> was incorporated into the new <emph>Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage</emph> for 3–5‐year‐olds (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]), which added additional details rather than overhauling policy (Faulkner & Coates, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref48">29</reflink>]). This became statutory in 2002 and was accompanied by a non‐statutory <emph>Birth to Three Matters framework</emph> (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]) for practitioners working with children under‐three. The 2006 Childcare Act prompted curriculum revision, and <emph>The Early Years Foundation Stage Framework</emph> (EYFS; Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>]), statutory for the whole of birth‐to‐five, was introduced. Although actual areas of learning remained largely unchanged, EYFS set standards for learning, development and care so that 'every child is included and not disadvantaged because of ethnicity, culture or religion, home language, family background, learning difficulties or disabilities, <emph>gender</emph> or ability' (Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>], p. 7). However, Moss ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>], p. 355) argues that despite this 'policy renaissance', Labour failed to produce an 'integrated, coherent and comprehensive service for children from birth to six', thus exacerbating entrenched problems in the system.</p> <p>Curriculum development by a Conservative‐Liberal Democrat Coalition government (2010–2014) took place during a period of austerity. Lloyd ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>], p. 144) describes a 'toxic' policy turn, underpinned by an economic well‐being rationale, the standardisation of educational quality, simplification of assessment and a 'school readiness' agenda (Moss, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]). Revision of the <emph>Statutory Framework</emph> in 2012 advanced these aims, which Lloyd ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref55">34</reflink>]) claims subsumed individual children's rights and interests.</p> <p>The next 7 years (2015–2021) saw a Conservative government focus on 'standards, regulation and accountability' reflected in revisions to the 2014, 2017, 2019 and 2021 Statutory Frameworks, accompanied by policy rhetoric claiming these changes would improve outcomes and ensure 'school readiness' (Wood, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>], p. 331). Wood ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref57">48</reflink>]) argues that a neoliberal agenda focused on economic productivity resulted in learning outcomes underpinned by child development theories that construct learning as predictable, normative (we would also argue heteronormative), assessable and reflect a limited understanding of children and their lifeworlds. Normative notions of child development are seen as a challenge to social justice as they curtail practitioners' ability to provide a curriculum that is responsive to individual children's experiences, and limit children's opportunities to explore gender meaningfully (Chesworth & Hedges, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-9">METHOD/DATA SET AND ANALYSIS</hd> <p>Fourteen birth‐to‐five curriculum documents from 1996 to 2021 comprise the data set (Table 1). All statutory documents are included. Non‐statutory documents were included in the data set where they expand the statutory curricula with examples and recommendations.</p> <p>1 TABLE Data set of statutory and non‐statutory curriculum documents from 1996 to 2021.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Curriculum document</th><th align="left">Date published</th><th align="left">Statutory/non‐statutory</th><th align="left">Political party published under</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Desirable outcomes for children's learning (Department for Education and Employment, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">1996</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">1996</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td><td align="left">Conservative</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage (3–5 years) (Department for Education and Skills, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2000</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">20002002</td><td align="left">Non‐statutoryBecomes Statutory in 2002</td><td align="left">Labour</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth to three matters framework (Department for Education and Skills, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2002a</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2002</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Birth to three matters component cards (Department for Education and Skills, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2002b</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2002</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage (Department for Children, Schools and Families, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2008b</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2008</td><td align="left">Statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Early years foundation stage principles into practice supplementary cards (Department for Children, Schools and Families, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2008a</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2008</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Practice guidance for the early years foundation stage (Department for Children, Schools and Families, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2008c</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2008</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Development matters in the early years foundation stage (Early Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2012</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2012</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td><td align="left">Conservative‐Liberal Democrat Coalition</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage (Department for Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2012</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2012</td><td align="left">Statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Early years outcomes (Department for Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2013</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2013</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Statutory framework for the early years Foundation stage (Department for Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2014</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2014</td><td align="left">Statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage (Department for Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2017</td><td align="left">Statutory</td><td align="left">Conservative</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Development matters non‐statutory curriculum guidance (Department for Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2021a</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2021</td><td align="left">Non‐statutory</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage (Department for Education, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2021b</xref>)</td><td align="char" char=".">2021</td><td align="left">Statutory</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We conducted a critical textual analysis, guided by the following questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Where is gender included within the national curriculum documents for birth‐to‐five in England from 1996 to 2021?</item> <p></p> <item> What does this reveal about constructions of gender and how do these constructions change over time?</item> </ulist> <p>Firstly, we searched the documents for terms which might highlight the location and use of gender, including directions and constructs relevant to gender. Terms included: 'gender', 'boy', 'girl', 'diversity', 'diverse', 'inclusivity', 'inclusion', 'equal', 'equality', 'equal opportunity', 'anti‐discriminatory' and 'anti‐discrimination'. Frequency counts were completed within documents but were deemed inappropriate as markers of comparison across documents due to variations in the size and structure of each document. Instead, patterns of usage across the documents were identified.</p> <p>Next, a close critical reading was completed across all sections of the documents and logged, identifying how, where, but also in what forms and constructs, gender could be both explicitly seen and implicitly read into the texts. Quotations gathered from the text were then 'read' for their intended and implied meanings, using both the literal language, and meanings that could be identified using an intentionally gender‐sensitive lens. These were shared and debated as authors co‐constructed meaning. This analysis focuses on explicit references to gender, which do not require a pre‐existing intention to 'see' opportunities for gender‐sensitive pedagogy. We then applied Connell's three principles of curricular justice.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-10">FINDINGS</hd> <p>We present five key findings. Two findings focus on the historical production of gender in the curriculum through examining patterns of usage in national guidance documents over the 25‐year period and contextualising them within the changing political landscape. The third considers the placement of gender in the documents and what this tells us about its representation. The final two findings identify confusions and contradictions in gender's conceptualisation. A picture of curricular injustice becomes evident.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-11">Finding 1: Limited references to gender over time</hd> <p>Connell's first principle suggests curricula should promote the interests of the least advantaged: in this case those who face gender discrimination or whose full participation is inhibited by gendered norms. However, gender receives limited attention in England's ECE curriculum guidance documents, with few explicit references. Half of the reviewed documents fail to mention gender (<emph>Desirable Outcomes</emph>, 1996; <emph>Birth to Three Matters</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]<emph>Statutory Frameworks for the Early Years</emph>, 2012, 2014, 2017 & 2021; <emph>Early Years Outcomes</emph>, 2013). Gender is absent from areas of learning except for Personal Social and Emotional Development (PSED) and Understanding the World (UW; 'Knowledge and Understanding of the World' in earlier documents). This replicates an issue identified in ECE curricula globally (see Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref60">49</reflink>]) and indicates that difference is not sufficiently recognised or represented (Riddle et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref61">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-12">Finding 2: Fluctuations in gender usage over time – Building foundations, a sweet spot and de...</hd> <p>Connell's argument regarding historical flux in the (re)production of social justice is evident when mapping gender's usage over 25 years, with three key shifts occurring (see Figure 1). These shifts largely correspond to the policies of different governments.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5AZ/01mar26/curj326-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="curj326-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Shifts in gender's position in ECE curricula from 1996 to 2021." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Connell's second curricular principle advocates a curriculum designed for democratic participation. Considering gender, curriculum documents from the late 1990s and early 2000s lay <emph>'gender foundations'</emph> such that future guidance might follow a more overtly gender‐sensitive approach designed for the participation of all pupils. For example, though not naming gender specifically, the practitioner's role is recognised in <emph>Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage</emph> 2000/2, through the instruction that 'Children learn from adults as guides ... and so develop anti‐discriminatory attitudes' (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref62">24</reflink>], p. 29).</p> <p>Using Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>], p. 50) words, a 'codification of culture' which is more intentionally gender‐disruptive occurs when political ideology around gender's place in education is foreground in curricula documents in ways intended to promote social justice. Documents published once the Labour government became established (2001–2008) shift towards greater <emph>'gender awareness'</emph>, producing a 'gender sweet spot'. In this more optimal phase, codification of a more gender‐aware approach means gender is represented more explicitly in the curriculum and gender‐sensitive pedagogical dimensions emerge. This includes an acknowledgement that practitioners should disrupt stereotypes, recognise and challenge their own gendered assumptions and subjectivities and, more broadly, move beyond general inclusion and equal opportunities requirements. The <emph>Birth to Three Matters Component Cards</emph> 2002, for example, declare that 'verbal messages about gender ... which young children hear affect their self‐worth either positively or negatively' (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref64">23</reflink>], p.14). Practitioners are told that 'children have the right to express choices, even when this conflicts with adults' views of what is appropriate, e.g. a boy who persistently chooses to wear a dress' (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref65">23</reflink>], p.32). Elsewhere, practitioners are challenged to 'consider their own attitudes to people who are different from themselves' and reminded that children may live with same sex parents (<emph>Principles into Practice Cards</emph>, Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>], pp. 7 & 15). Thus, gender is not only more visible, but the practitioner's role in relation to gender aligns with a more gender‐sensitive approach, leading, one hopes, to greater gender justice. This more gender‐aware phase, highlighted by our consideration of the historical production of curricular justice (principle 3), shows how an intention to support the least advantaged and develop children who are ready to participate in society (principles 1 and 2) is promoted by the more visible positioning of gender within curricula.</p> <p>Connell ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>]) argues that mechanisms of inequality shift over time. Documents published under the Conservative‐LibDem coalition and Conservative governments (2012 onwards) reflect a period of <emph>'gender decline'</emph>, erasing attempts to produce a participatory curriculum written for the interests of the least advantaged. Gender either disappears completely or only appears within general inclusion statements, bundled with other inequalities such as race and disability. Repositioning gender under a general statement alongside other dimensions of inequality accords each protected characteristic reduced focus. The exception is the current, but non‐statutory, <emph>Development Matters</emph> 2021 document. Curiously, although gender receives no reference in the accompanying <emph>Statutory Framework for the Early Years</emph> 2021, <emph>Development Matters</emph> contains the only explicit reference to gender in the literacy curriculum across the 25‐year review. In the PSED curriculum area, explicit instruction is made to challenge gender stereotypes through pedagogy, materials and songs, and to support children in developing positive attitudes towards gender. However, as an example of Connell's ghettoisation and failed common curriculum, one <emph>non</emph>‐statutory document demonstrating some gender‐sensitive pedagogy is insufficient to promote gender justice on its own. These 'green shoots' have since been undermined by policy documents outside the review period seeking to reinstate a 'single socially dominant viewpoint' (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>], p. 46). Draft policies like <emph>Relationships Education</emph>, <emph>Relationship and Sex Education and Health Education</emph> (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref69">19</reflink>]) and <emph>Gender Questioning Children Non‐Statutory Guidance for Schools and Colleges in England</emph> (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]) map gender to biological sex and propose prohibiting the teaching of gender identity, particularly with younger children. Gender's absence from the statutory ECE curriculum, and inclusion only within an accompanying non‐statutory document, remains consistent with our framing of this period as a time when gender's curricular position declines, reproducing the unequal social relationships Connell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>], p. 47) describes.</p> <p>In reviewing gender's position across 25 years of ECE curricula, we find that, as Connell argued in principle 3, the production of gender (in)justice, as one example of curricular justice, fluctuates as political shifts occur. 'Codification' of the dominant culture within the curriculum (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>], p. 50) reflects political ideologies held by those in power.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-14">Finding 3: Gender as a 'curriculum ghetto'</hd> <p>Many documents fail to integrate gender across the curriculum, instead placing it in specific subsections. We read this positioning as the 'separate‐and‐different' curriculum or 'curriculum ghetto' Connell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>], p. 44) critiques. In particular, gender is almost entirely absent from subject‐specific sections, contrary to expectations if the interests of the least advantaged were forefront. Generally, gender appears in the following locations:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> in introductions or front matter</item> <p></p> <item> in a generic 'inclusion' section</item> <p></p> <item> within supplementary materials</item> <p></p> <item> as non‐statutory examples.</item> </ulist> <p>Page 1 of <emph>Development Matters</emph> 2012 recognises children's rights to 'develop their personalities, talents and abilities irrespective of ... gender' (Early Education, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref74">26</reflink>]). Similarly, on page 6 of <emph>Practice Guidance for the EYFS</emph> 2008, providers are directed to 'actively avoid gender stereotyping' (Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]). Positioning gender within front matter may imply that statements should be applied across the curriculum. However, this is not explicitly stated, raising the question of how practitioners read and use curriculum documents and what pedagogic skills and decisions are required to ensure generic introductory statements are integrated into practice.</p> <p>Some documents contain separate subsections dedicated to inclusion. This is where gender is often located. For example, the 2008 <emph>EYFS Principles into Practice Cards</emph> has a section entitled 'Inclusive Practice'. Relying on simple 'inclusion' runs counter to Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]) stress on the importance of 'participation', with active, democratic involvement. A further problem arises because generic inclusion sections group together several inequalities, including race, disability and gender. Whilst this may support arguments about the intersectionality of inequalities, often the prevailing focus of inclusion sections is the needs of children with disabilities. As such, gender is minimised by its limited adoption within inclusion sections themselves, and a hierarchy of importance which diminishes its centrality to curricular justice. This challenges scholarship on the importance of representation and raises the spectre of competing equities, thus failing to produce a high‐quality curriculum for all (Riddle et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref77">40</reflink>]). Even when explicitly integrated into inclusion subsections, actions specific to gender are given as non‐statutory examples, that is, as illustrations of how inclusion <emph>might</emph> be realised. As long as the broader inclusive principles are achieved, gender can be overlooked in favour of other examples. Subsuming gender into general inclusion sections, or offering gender as an 'option' serves, as predicted in Connell's first and second principles, to prevent all children, both the least advantaged and all others, from being ready for participation in a democratic society. To promote curricular justice, gender must be integrated within curricula, rather than siloed in subsections.</p> <p>This review suggests moving the dial on gender's curricular position is inhibited by using non‐statutory documents to highlight gender concerns rather than developing a common curriculum focused on the needs of the least advantaged (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]). Documents with the most explicit recognition of gender are often those which offer non‐statutory, supplementary guidance to the statutory curriculum. Many of the documents published between 2001 and 2008, when an apparently more gender‐aware approach was taken, stopped short of fully integrating gender into statutory policy. Examples include <emph>Birth to Three Matters Component Cards</emph> 2001, <emph>Principles into Practice Cards</emph> 2008, <emph>Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage</emph> 2008 and the current <emph>Development Matters</emph> 2021. Embedding gender into non‐statutory texts may occur more frequently because these documents are often organised around less explicitly 'subject‐focused' dimensions and offer opportunity for greater exemplification. For example, <emph>Birth to Three Matters Component Cards</emph> (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]) contains section headings reflecting a child's broad development, for example 'A strong child' or 'A competent learner', with gender woven across these dimensions (see Table 2).</p> <p>2 TABLE Content from birth to three matters component cards (Department for Education and Skills, 2002b).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Subsection</th><th align="left">Quotation</th><th align="left">Page no.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">A strong child</td><td align="left">The recognition of the significance of each child's race, culture, ability and gender comes from the respect for, and value of, difference. Don't be afraid to discuss different physical characteristics, as well as individual preferences, as these are important aspects of self‐identity and inform children about others.</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">A skilful communicator</td><td align="left">The kinds of verbal messages about gender, ethnicity, ability, language etc. which young children hear affect their self‐worth either positively or negatively.</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">A competent learner</td><td align="left">Girls and boys often play in different ways, but some differences are learned. Role models of caring and strong females and males help them go beyond stereotyped limits.</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">It is essential that children positively identify with young children of the same gender. However, this does not need to limit their creative play.</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Encourage boys to engage in activities involving mark‐making, print and representation.</td><td align="char" char=".">24</td></tr><tr><td align="left">A healthy child</td><td align="left">Valuing children's race, cultural identity and gender by choosing appropriate resources, activities and experiences, increases their sense of belonging and contributes positively to their emotional well‐being.</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Accepting that children have the right to express choices, even when this conflicts with adults' views of what is appropriate; e.g., .... a boy who persistently chooses to wear a dress, a girl who seldom chooses to go outdoors.</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>This approach to positioning gender in a non‐statutory, curriculum ghetto pertains. As noted, the supplementary <emph>Development Matters</emph> (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]) offers gender‐sensitive statements, while the statutory curriculum document, <emph>Statutory Framework for the EYFS</emph> 2021, reproduces hegemonic gender absence. Inclusion of gender in supplementary guidance documents risks the same effect as its listing in non‐statutory parts of statutory frameworks: with the statutory curriculum as the main focus, supplementary materials appear as <emph>optional</emph> extras rather than important dimensions to be integrated into practice. This underlines the importance of understanding how practitioners read and use curriculum documents, such as the relationship they perceive between supplementary materials and their daily practice, reinforcing the distribution of dominant forms of knowledge and failing to develop curricular justice.</p> <p>Although gender rarely appears in subject areas of the ECE documents, <emph>Development Matters</emph> 2021 contains two exceptions. The PSED learning area states that when children ask questions about differences, including gender, practitioners should 'Be open', 'answer their questions straightforwardly', 'Help children develop positive attitudes towards diversity and inclusion' and ensure children feel 'they belong' (Figure 2). The UW section acknowledges that babies and young children learn to 'Notice differences between people'. Practitioners are encouraged to support this with 'materials which confront gender stereotypes' (Figure 3). However, Connell's counter‐hegemonic curriculum is not achieved by this simple scattering of gender into learning areas which focus on pastoral development (in PSED), or the human dimension (UW). Embodying the interests of the least advantaged means 'reconstruct[ing] the mainstream' (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>], p.44).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5AZ/01mar26/curj326-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="curj326-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Development Matters 2021a: Personal, Social and Emotional Development, p. 48." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5AZ/01mar26/curj326-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="curj326-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Development Matters 2021a: Understanding of World, p. 103." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Challenging gender siloing is important if Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>]) warning, that ghettoisation is the root to social injustice, is to be heeded. Individuals do not only have a gender identity when learning in some subject areas and not others. Gender's appearance in supplementary materials organised around <emph>holistic principles</emph> rather than <emph>subject‐specific skills</emph> signals the need for a more conscious intention to promote gender‐sensitive pedagogy across the curriculum. This would better align with Connell's treatise for common schooling.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-17">Finding 4: Constructing gender as an aspect of 'equal opportunities'</hd> <p>Some documents reference gender in relation to the generic terms 'inclusion', 'equal opportunities' or 'anti‐discrimination'. As noted, Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>]) stress on the importance of <emph>participation</emph> means that mere equality of opportunity through inclusion is insufficient to achieve social justice. Equality aims offer a false promise in delivering democratic, socially just schooling. This is evident in gender's placement in subsections titled 'Inclusion', but it also shapes gender's construction. Mills et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref84">36</reflink>]) critique the common, and erroneous, adoption of 'equality' in place of equity when attempting to address social justice. Gender is referenced in relation to an equality of opportunity framing in documents including <emph>Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage</emph> 2000, <emph>Statutory Framework for EYFS</emph> 2008 and the <emph>Early Years Foundation Stage Principles into Practice Cards</emph> 2008. The stated aim of the 2008 <emph>Statutory Framework for EYFS</emph> is to help children achieve by:</p> <p>...providing for equality of opportunity and anti‐discriminatory practice and ensuring that every child is included and not disadvantaged because of ethnicity, culture or religion, home language, family background, learning difficulties or disabilities, <emph>gender</emph> or ability. (Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>], p. 7)</p> <p>Accompanying directives for the same aim in <emph>Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage</emph> 2000 explain how inclusive principles can be implemented:</p> <p>These principles require practitioners to plan a learning environment ... that encourages a positive attitude to learning ... by ensuring each child feels included. This is demonstrated when practitioners: plan an environment free from stereotypical images and discriminatory practice. (<emph>Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage</emph>, Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref86">24</reflink>], p. 14)</p> <p>This framing implies that gender is important in relation to broader legal requirements but not specifically in support of children's lived experiences, as would be promoted through principle 1's introduction of an overtly gender‐sensitive approach for the needs of the least advantaged. A shift towards the measurement of access and achievement against specified outcomes reflects educational policy's contemporary focus on an equality remit (Keddie, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref87">33</reflink>]; Wood, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref88">48</reflink>]), demonstrating an emphasis on redistribution, rather than the recognition and representation which underpin participation in common schooling (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]; Riddle et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref90">40</reflink>]). We further argue that discussion of gender under terms like 'equal opportunities' or 'discrimination' assumes shared, and likely hegemonic, understanding of equality and how this can be achieved. This fails to meet Connell's principles of curricular justice by doing little to encourage the adoption of a more explicitly gender‐sensitive or gender‐flexible approach, or to promote gender's importance beyond equality of access.</p> <p>Connell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref91">5</reflink>], p. 46) warned that a lack of justice in curricula leads to waves of <emph>in</emph>justice when political ideologies shift and a 'single, socially dominant viewpoint' gains ascendence. This is made evident in our review of how (in)equality is produced. We observe that the Labour Government's (albeit limited) gender‐citing equal opportunities statement in the <emph>EYFS Statutory Framework</emph> 2008 (quoted earlier) is superseded in documents from the Conservative‐led and Conservative periods, with the more generic declaration: 'The EYFS seeks to provide ... equality of opportunity and anti‐discriminatory practice, ensuring that every child is included and supported' (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref92">17</reflink>], p. 5; also <emph>EYFS</emph> 2012; 2014; 2017). Removing the <emph>specific</emph> requirement to avoid gendered discrimination is at best puzzling given the Equality and Human Rights Commission's ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref93">27</reflink>]) conclusions that the UK has made 'limited' or 'no progress' in gender equality against the UN's goals. Moreover, the explicitly gender‐sensitive pedagogy of documents from 2001 to 2008, which goes beyond anti‐discrimination or equality of opportunity, requiring practitioners to challenge and disrupt gender stereotypes, is, in this later period, absent. This demonstrates Connell's point that equality is not static and supports our contention that gender's position within the curriculum diminishes, rather than improving over time, heightening the curricular <emph>in</emph>justice.</p> <p>Chapman ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>]) advocates for the centring of 'gender as identity' within ECE curricula, moving the construction of gender, and expectations of practitioners, far closer to scholarly understandings of the importance of gender‐sensitive and gender‐flexible pedagogies. An example of a more gender‐sensitive approach, which advances gender's construction beyond a simple equality of access issue and could promote the interests of the least advantaged by building <emph>all</emph> children's preparedness for societal participation, is present in <emph>Birth to Three Matters Component Cards</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref95">23</reflink>], p. 8):</p> <p>The recognition of the significance of each child's race, culture, ability <emph>and gender</emph> comes from the respect for, and value of difference. Don't be afraid to discuss different physical characteristics, as well as individual preferences, as these are important aspects of self‐identity and inform children about others.</p> <p>This statement avoids subsuming gender within an equality of access discourse, recognising gender's importance as a fundamental dimension of identity.</p> <p>Occasionally, curriculum documents rely on specific laws as a coverall for gender. Whilst introducing a legal dimension, this does little to promote gender's pedagogical importance and centrality to curricular justice. <emph>Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage</emph> 2000/2 references the Sex Discrimination Act (1975). <emph>Development Matters</emph> 2012 draws on internationally agreed conventions:</p> <p>Children have a right, spelled out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to provision which enables them to develop their personalities, talents and abilities irrespective of ethnicity, culture or religion, home language, family background, learning difficulties, disabilities or <emph>gender</emph>. (Early Education, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref96">26</reflink>], p. 1)</p> <p>Relying on national legislation or international agreements implies that meeting a minimum level of legal <emph>non‐discrimination</emph> is sufficient. This is limiting when the curriculum itself does not advance the principles of either common schooling or serve the needs of the least advantaged by making gender central. Connell ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref97">6</reflink>], p. 682) demands that 'deep diversities' require 'educational responses'. Social justice cannot occur if high‐level legislative constructs take the place of integrating principles of curricular justice into the school system through functional aspects like a common curriculum. Legal recognition of inequality is therefore insufficient.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-18">Finding 5: Gender‐binary constructions and contradictions</hd> <p>Democratic participation requires an understanding of cultural differences and perspectives, rather than curricula that reflect a 'single socially dominant' viewpoint (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>], p. 46). Despite the Labour years' more gender‐sensitive approach, closer analysis finds problematic gender‐binary constructions which contradict gender‐sensitive pedagogies (Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref99">51</reflink>]). Directives highlighted in <emph>finding 3</emph> intending to resolve unequal opportunities are often underpinned by binary framings which, by essentialising gender, fail all children through undemocratic processes. <emph>Birth to Three Matters Component Cards</emph> 2002 instructs practitioners to 'Encourage boys to engage in activities involving mark‐making, print and representation' (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref100">23</reflink>], p. 18). <emph>Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage</emph> 2000 directs practitioners to 'encourage both boys and girls to use construction equipment, engage in role play, use ICT or undertake investigation and design tasks' (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref101">24</reflink>], p. 84). This guidance is underpinned by gendered scripts of boys' and girls' different interests and skills. Whilst successfully highlighting gender and recognising the social stereotypes which encourage differently gendered play, each encouragement based on a binary construction reproduces that binary. Such binaries, by failing to recognise individuals whose gender experiences are not rooted in simple, binary biological sex, reflect a 'single socially dominant' perspective.</p> <p> <emph>Restrictive</emph> constructions do little to advance Riddle et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref102">40</reflink>]) calls for recognition and representation and undermine Connell's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref103">5</reflink>]) curricular principles regarding the interests of the least advantaged. There are also <emph>contradictory</emph> framings of gender. <emph>Birth to Three Matters Component Cards</emph> 2002 states that:</p> <p>It is essential that children positively identify with young children of the same gender. However, this does not need to limit their creative play. (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref104">23</reflink>], p. 20)</p> <p>This statement seems intended to address gender positively. Yet, a binary construction is implied in the promotion of a 'same' gender group. Similarly, the statement 'Girls and boys often play in different ways, but some differences are learned' suggests a gender‐sensitive recognition that learned gender‐binary play should be counteracted (Department for Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref105">23</reflink>], p. 18). However, the accompanying solution that 'Role models of caring and strong females and males help them go beyond stereotyped limits' reinforces discredited ideas that men and women practitioners act as role models for their gender 'group' (Warin, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref106">44</reflink>]). This contradictory framing extends to representations of families. A section in <emph>EYFS Principles into Practice Cards</emph> encourages reflection on parent–practitioner relationships. Father‐only events are recommended because 'Some men may feel more comfortable knowing that other men will be there' (Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref107">9</reflink>], p. 16). By constructing a difference between fathers and mothers, this overlooks the social and cultural shaping of gendered parenting (Locke & Yarwood, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref108">35</reflink>]) and excludes non‐binary parents, despite appearing designed to address a gender equality issue. The statement also contradicts the document's own reminder to respect diversity because '[f]amilies are all different' and not always heteronormative (Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref109">9</reflink>], p. 15).</p> <p>Other statements fall short of the counter‐hegemonic curriculum Connell ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref110">5</reflink>]) advocates by being ambiguous or open to misinterpretation along gender‐binary lines. In <emph>Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage</emph> 2008, the instruction to 'help children become aware of, explore <emph>and question</emph> differences in gender [our emphasis]' has two possible interpretations (Department for Children, Schools and Families, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref111">11</reflink>], p. 77): either practitioners should direct 'boys' to understand that they are different to 'girls', or they should encourage children to challenge supposed differences between genders. Given that this document also calls practitioners to 'actively avoid gender stereotyping' (p. 6), and '[g]ive children accurate information which challenges ... gender stereotypes' (p. 78), the latter interpretation is more consistent. However, ambiguity means the statement could be assumed to support gender‐binary constructions, particularly given the phrase '<emph>become aware of</emph> ... differences in gender' as though differences exist rather than being socially constructed. Such directions do little to 'embody the interests of the least advantaged' (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref112">5</reflink>], p. 44). Similar misrecognition and misrepresentation occurs for children disadvantaged by their learning needs (Hargreaves et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref113">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Whilst practitioners are sometimes encouraged to reflect on their own assumptions, there is a lack of accompanying guidance on gender‐sensitive and gender‐flexible pedagogy that could support those disadvantaged by their gendered position. In the <emph>EYFS Principles into Practice cards</emph> 2008, an outdoor play scenario is described, inviting practitioners to consider personal readings of gender (Figure 4). However, the scenario is infused with stereotypical assumptions about boys playing noisily and waving sticks, while girls listen peacefully and attentively to a story. Although the intention may be to provoke practitioner recognition of their own gendered subjectivities, drawing on gendered images of play, without careful explanation, risks reinforcing problematic stereotypes known to restrict children's full participation by limiting their play (see Josephidou, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref114">32</reflink>]; Xu et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref115">50</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/5AZ/01mar26/curj326-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="curj326-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 EYFS Principles into Practice 2008, p. 30." /> </p> <p></p> <p>We have thus far discussed gender constructions found in documents rooted in an ideological positioning more open to gender as a social justice issue and yet we still identify challenges to Connell's principles for curricular justice. We turn now to the non‐statutory <emph>Development Matters</emph> 2021a which reintroduces gender after a period of decline. Practitioners are called to 'avoid' and 'challenge' gender stereotypes, and include songs, resources and materials which '<emph>confront</emph> gender stereotypes' (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref116">16</reflink>], pp. 76, 103, 105) thus offering the prospect of gender disruption. However, a framing of gender around 'difference' remains. Practitioners are guided to help children 'Notice and ask questions about differences, such as ... gender' and 'Be open to what children say about differences and answer their questions straightforwardly' (see Figure 2). Again, conflicting interpretations are possible: this either challenges gender stereotypes or encourages gender‐binary labelling. With gender already constructed according to generic 'equality of opportunity' aims (see <emph>finding 3</emph>), gender‐binary readings of 'difference' may be reinforced, instead of encouraging adoption of gender‐sensitive approaches.</p> <p>Connell's principles are unlikely to be met given the confused and binary constructions of gender evidenced across this period of birth‐to‐five ECE policy, even when political will demonstrates an intention to raise the profile and importance of gender as a curricular and pedagogical issue. Not only does the historical production of gender justice fluctuate according to ideological positions which invalidate the idea of common and democratic schooling, but problematic constructions of gender limit and reproduce gender <emph>in</emph>justice.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-20">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Existing research calls for gender‐sensitive and gender‐flexible practice among ECE practitioners; but without a supportive national framework, such calls are unlikely to be enacted at scale. This 25‐year review of curriculum documents in England for children from birth‐to‐five demonstrates that the historical production of equality is neither static nor necessarily progressive over time. Overlooking both the needs of the least advantaged (principle 1) and common schooling for the participation of all (principle 2) by subsuming them to a codification based on ideological framings of gender rooted in the dominant political discourse of the period (principle 3) embeds gender injustice within policy documents. The ideological production and reproduction of gender (in)justice occurs: firstly, through gender's overall presence or absence and specific location within documents; secondly, through conceptual confusion including binary constructions, bounding gender to notions of 'equality', a reliance on national and international frameworks, and contradictions in the way gender is represented. With gender siloed, constructed in problematic ways, and fluctuating according to changing political ideologies, forming a deep understanding of the gender‐sensitive pedagogies required for gender justice may be challenging for ECE practitioners.</p> <p>We note the potential social consequences of ignoring this kind of injustice. In contemporary UK society, women and girls' social position remains insecure, transwomen are caught in an increasingly dangerous discourse, domestic and public violence against women remains high, and anti‐gender rhetoric from media, politicians and social influencers gains pace. In this highly politicised context, gender's most recent (re)construction and declining position in ECE curriculum documents is concerning. We argue, therefore, for greater focus on gender in curricula, to support practitioners' understanding of gender‐sensitive and gender‐flexible pedagogies. This long view of gender's fluctuating and insecure position in ECE policy should act as a catalyst for considering the way curricular (in)justice operates for other dimensions of social inequality and the intersections between them.</p> <p>Whilst this paper warns of the potential impacts arising when political ideology shapes policy documents against social justice, we urge that, with an incoming Labour government in England, now is the time for a sustained focus on curricular justice. Having announced both a focus on ECE (Phillipson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref117">39</reflink>]) and a curriculum review (Department for Education,  [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref118">20</reflink>]), the new government has stated its intention to provide 'A curriculum that reflects the issues and diversities of our society, ensuring all children and young people are represented' (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref119">20</reflink>]). This review must be undertaken with Connell's principles in mind, to ensure that further gender injustice is not reproduced in problematic ideological framings within the ECE curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-21">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This project was funded by the University of Nottingham's ICRF fund.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-22">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>None of the authors have a conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-23">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the public domain: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130401151715; https://<ulink href="http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF‐00012‐2007.pdf;">www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF‐00012‐2007.pdf;</ulink> https://<ulink href="http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2011/10/EYFS%5fPractice%5fGuide1.pdf;">www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2011/10/EYFS%5fPractice%5fGuide1.pdf;</ulink> https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/6413/7/statutory‐framework%5fRedacted.pdf; https://www.education‐uk.org/documents/pdfs/2012‐eyfs‐statutory‐framework.pdf; https://<ulink href="http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Children‐and‐families‐services/Early‐Years/Early%5fYears%5fOutcomes.pdf;">www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Children‐and‐families‐services/Early‐Years/Early%5fYears%5fOutcomes.pdf;</ulink> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e6002a20ae890014f26cbc/DfE%5fDevelopment%5fMatters%5fReport%5fSep2023.pdf; https://<ulink href="http://www.icmec.org/wp‐content/uploads/2018/01/EYFS%5fSTATUTORY%5fFRAMEWORK%5f2017.pdf;">www.icmec.org/wp‐content/uploads/2018/01/EYFS%5fSTATUTORY%5fFRAMEWORK%5f2017.pdf;</ulink> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e6002a20ae890014f26cbc/DfE%5fDevelopment%5fMatters%5fReport%5fSep2023.pdf; https://<ulink href="http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/537/6379/6441/6442/4139616132.pdf?timestamp=43263688;">www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/537/6379/6441/6442/4139616132.pdf?timestamp=43263688;</ulink> https://consult.education.gov.uk/equalities‐political‐impartiality‐anti‐bullying‐team/gender‐questioning‐children‐proposed‐guidance/supporting%5fdocuments; https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships‐education‐relationships‐and‐sex‐education‐rse‐and‐health‐education;">www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships‐education‐relationships‐and‐sex‐education‐rse‐and‐health‐education;</ulink> https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED433091; https://www.education‐uk.org/documents/foundationstage/index.html; <ulink href="http://www.theministryofparenting.com/wp‐content/uploads/2012/02/Birth‐to‐Three‐Matters‐Booklet.pdf;">www.theministryofparenting.com/wp‐content/uploads/2012/02/Birth‐to‐Three‐Matters‐Booklet.pdf;</ulink> https://<ulink href="http://www.theministryofparenting.com/wp‐content/uploads/2012/02/Birth‐to‐Three‐Matter‐Cards.pdf;">www.theministryofparenting.com/wp‐content/uploads/2012/02/Birth‐to‐Three‐Matter‐Cards.pdf;</ulink> https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/14042/7/development%20matters%20in%20the%20early%20years%20foundation%20stage_Redacted.pdf.</p> <hd id="AN0190860288-24">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This research did not require ethics approval. All documents are publicly available.</p> <ref id="AN0190860288-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We use the term 'practitioners' to describe all educators working with young children regardless of qualification level, in line with birth to five curriculum guidance in England. This includes educators working in home‐based, group and school settings. 'Educators' refers to those working across all educational phases.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Whilst we acknowledge children's rights and capabilities to fully participate in the present, Connell's use of common schooling for democratic participation is as preparation for full participation in society.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0190860288-26"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bhana, D., Xu, Y., & Adriany, V. (Eds.). (2024). Gendered and sexual norms in global south early childhood education. Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman, R. (2022). Moving beyond 'gender neutral': Creating gender expansive environments in early childhood education. Gender and Education, 34 (1), 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref58" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Chesworth, E., & Hedges, H. (2024). Children's interests and early childhood curriculum: A critical analysis of the relationship between research, policy, and practice. The New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 29, 5 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref16" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Connell, R. (1992). Citizenship, social justice and curriculum. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2 (2), 133 – 146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Connell, R. (1993). Schools and social justice. James Lorimer & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Connell, R. (2012). Viewpoint: Just education. Journal of Education Policy, 27 (5), 681 – 683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref33" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Connell, R., & Pearse, R. (2015). Gender in world perspective (3rd ed.). Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref39" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cousins, T. A. (2020). Collegiality vs role models: Gendered discourses and the 'glass escalator' in English primary schools. Early Years, 40 (1), 37 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref66" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2008a). Early years foundation stage principles into practice cards. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2008b). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2008c). Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2012). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage – Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2013). Early Years Outcomes. A Non‐Statutory Guide for Practitioners and Inspectors to Help Inform Understanding of Child Development Through the Early Years. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2014). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage – Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2017). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2021a). Development Matters Non‐Statutory Curriculum Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2021b). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2023). Gender Questioning Children Non‐Statutory Guidance for Schools and Colleges in England. Draft Document. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2024a). Draft Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2024b). What is the National Curriculum and Why is it Being Reviewed? The Education Hub. https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/09/25/what‐is‐the‐national‐curriculum‐and‐why‐is‐it‐being‐reviewed/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education and Employment. (1996). Nursery education desirable outcomes for Children's learning on entering compulsory schooling. Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority/DfEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education and Skills. (2002a). Birth to three matters framework. DfES.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education and Skills. (2002b). Birth to three matters component cards. Department for Education and Skills.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education and Skills. (2000). Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donovan, C., Gangoli, G., King, H., & Dutt, A. (2023). Understanding gender and sexuality: The hidden curriculum in English schools. Review of Education, 11 (3), 1 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Early Education. (2012). Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. Crown Copyright.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2021). Human Rights Tracker. https://humanrightstracker.com/en/?posts_per_page=10&s=gender%20education&un_sustainable_development_goal%5B%5D=goal_5_gender_equality&post_types%5B%5D=progress_assessment&from%5Bday%5D=&from%5Bmonth%5D=&from%5Byear%5D=&to%5Bday%5D=&to%5Bmonth%5D=&to%5Byear%5D=</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, A. (2024). Teachers Told not to Teach About Gender Identity. BBC News. https://<ulink href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education‐69017920">www.bbc.co.uk/news/education‐69017920</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faulkner, D., & Coates, E. A. (2013). Early childhood policy and practice in England: Twenty years of change. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21 (263), 244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fawcett Society. (2019). Gender Stereotypes in Early Childhood. https://<ulink href="http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=e8096848‐cbdb‐4e16‐8713‐ee0dadb3dcc5">www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=e8096848‐cbdb‐4e16‐8713‐ee0dadb3dcc5</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves, E., Quick, L., & Buchanan, D. (2024). Children who experience misrecognition in primary education: A social justice perspective. British Educational Research Journal, 50 (4), 1898 – 1916.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Josephidou, J. (2020). A gendered contribution to play? Perceptions of early childhood education and care (ECEC) practitioners in England on how their gender influences their approaches to play. Early Years, 40 (1), 95 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keddie, A. (2012). Schooling and social justice through the lenses of Nancy Fraser. Critical Studies in Education, 53 (3), 263 – 279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lloyd, E. (2015). Early childhood education and care policy in England under the coalition government. London Review of Education, 13 (2), 144 – 156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Locke, A., & Yarwood, G. (2017). Exploring the depths of gender, parenting and work: Critical discursive psychology and the 'missing voices' of involved fatherhood. Community, Work & Family, 20 (1), 4 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, M., Riddle, S., McGregor, G., & Howell, A. (2022). Towards an understanding of curricular justice and democratic schooling. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 54 (3), 345 – 356.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, P. (2014). Early childhood policy in England 1997–2013: Anatomy of a missed opportunity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22 (4), 346 – 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nutbrown, C. (2021). Early childhood educators' qualifications: A framework for change. International Journal for Early Years Education, 29 (3), 236 – 249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillipson, B. (2024). Letter to the Education Workforce. The Education Hub. https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/08/letter‐to‐the‐education‐workforce‐from‐education‐secretary‐bridget‐phillipson/ https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/08/letter‐to‐the‐education‐workforce‐from‐education‐secretary‐bridget‐phillipson/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riddle, S., Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2023). Curricular justice and contemporary schooling: Towards a rich, common curriculum for all students. Curriculum Perspectives, 43, 137 – 144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riddle, S., Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2024). Curricular justice and contemporary schooling: Perspectives from Australia and the UK [Special Issue]. The Curriculum Journal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sullivan, V., Coles, L., Xu, Y., & Thorpe, K. (2023). Men times ten: Does the presence of more men support inclusion of male educators in early childhood education and care? Gender and Education, 35 (1), 18 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylva, K. (2010). Quality in early childhood settings. In K. Sylva, E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj‐Blatchford, & B. Taggart (Eds.), Early childhood matters (pp. 86 – 107). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warin, J. (2019). Conceptualising the value of male practitioners in early childhood education and care: Gender balance or gender flexibility. Gender and Education, 31 (3), 293 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warin, J. (2023). Gender in early childhood education: Implementing a gender flexible pedagogy. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warin, J., & Adriany, V. (2015). Gender flexible pedagogy in early childhood education. Journal of Gender Studies, 26 (4), 375 – 386.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkinson, J., & Warin, J. (2022). Men‐only support spaces in early years education: A step towards a gender diverse or a gender divided workforce? Gender and Education, 34 (4), 478 – 493.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Y., Brooks, C., Gao, J., & Kitto, E. (2023). The manifestations of universality and cultural specificity in national curriculum policy frameworks: Negotiations for culturally reflective practice in early childhood education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 33 (2), 1 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Y., Schweisfurth, M., & Read, B. (2022). Men's participation in early childhood education and care (ECEC): Comparative perspectives from Edinburgh, Scotland and Tianjin, China. Comparative Education, 58 (3), 345 – 363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Y., Warin, J., & Robb, M. (2020). Beyond gender binaries: Pedagogies and practices in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Early Years, 40 (1), 1 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rachel Lehner‐Mear; Kerryn Dixon; Yuwei Xu; Catherine Gripton and Lucy Cooker</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref118"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1493864
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gender as an Issue of Curricular (In)Justice: A Review of National Early Childhood Education Curriculum Documents in England from 1996 to 2021
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+Lehner-Mear%22">Rachel Lehner-Mear</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0129-9935">0000-0002-0129-9935</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kerryn+Dixon%22">Kerryn Dixon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4748-6338">0000-0003-4748-6338</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yuwei+Xu%22">Yuwei Xu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6477-2857">0000-0002-6477-2857</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Catherine+Gripton%22">Catherine Gripton</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1832-9480">0000-0003-1832-9480</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lucy+Cooker%22">Lucy Cooker</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Curriculum+Journal%22"><i>Curriculum Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 37(1):88-106.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex%22">Sex</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Fairness%22">Sex Fairness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Curriculum%22">National Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disproportionate+Representation%22">Disproportionate Representation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Justice%22">Social Justice</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/curj.326
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0958-5176<br />1469-3704
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Abstract In England, gender is currently a controversial issue, with debates in social and political spheres increasingly impacting educational policy. Simultaneously, scholarship on gender in Early Childhood Education (ECE) advocates more gender-sensitive pedagogies to disrupt restrictive and essentialised views. We use Connell's principles of curricular justice to analyse gender's position in England's birth-to-five policies. Taking as the lynchpin of our analysis Connell's third principle, the historical production of equality, we trace gender's representation in 14 birth-to-five statutory and non-statutory curriculum documents from 1996 to 2021, identifying the extent to which these curricula support practitioners to teach in just and equitable ways. A picture of curricular injustice becomes evident. Our review highlights how changes in the broader political system result in three shifts in gender's curricular positioning (defined as gender foundations; gender awareness; gender decline) that ultimately fail the needs of the least advantaged and inhibit children's preparation for democratic participation in society. The ideological (re)production of gender (in)justice in the curricula occurs, firstly, through limited references to gender, fluctuations in gender's use over time and gender's siloing in non-statutory statements. Secondly, conceptual confusion, the use of binary constructs and a reliance on both legal non-discrimination and an equal opportunity framing restrict gender justice. This review exposes the ways in which the reproduction of social power in the ECE curriculum reinforces gender inequalities, thus raising questions about the curriculum's suitability for supporting socially just, gender-sensitive pedagogy in ECE. We conclude that now is the time for a renewal of curricular justice.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1493864
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1493864
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/curj.326
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 88
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sex Fairness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: National Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disproportionate Representation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Power Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gender as an Issue of Curricular (In)Justice: A Review of National Early Childhood Education Curriculum Documents in England from 1996 to 2021
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel Lehner-Mear
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kerryn Dixon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yuwei Xu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Catherine Gripton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lucy Cooker
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0958-5176
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3704
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Curriculum Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1