Power Dynamics and Children's Agency in Transition-to-School Curriculum: A Critical Reflection Based on Personal Curriculum Experience
Abstract
influence on the development of children's agency embedded in the curriculum implementation process. The analysis reveals that the curriculum is primarily oriented toward school readiness and, under the combined influence of adultism and the examination-oriented education
system, has developed into a curriculum model characterized by knowledge transmission, disciplinary regulation, and standardized assessment. Although this curriculum enhances children's readiness for primary school learning in the short term, it also constrains their autonomy,
creativity, critical thinking, and social development to a certain extent, thereby reinforcing unequal power relations in education. Drawing on
the philosophy of New Zealand's Te WhÄriki curriculum framework, this paper argues that future Transition-to-School Curriculum should
adopt a child-centred approach, respect children's agency, strengthen democratic participation, and promote a shift from knowledge-oriented
curriculum design to the holistic development of children.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] Chan, A., & Perkins, M. (2015). Self-review processes: Using critical discourse analysis to improve practices in early childhood education settings. Early Childhood Folio, 19(2), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.18296/ecf.0013
[2] Farrelly, M., Montesano Montessori, N., & Mulderrig, J. (2019). Concluding remarks on critical policy discourse analysis. In N. Montesano Montessori, M. Farrelly, & J. Mulderrig (Eds.), Critical policy discourse analysis (pp. 264–270). Edward Elgar Publishing.
[3] Hunkin, E., Kilderry, A., & Nolan, A. (2022). Affirmative discourse intervention: A framework for re-democratising engagement with
education policy discourse. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 23(2), 166-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949120966103
[4] Joseph, P. B. (2011). Conceptualizing curriculum. In P. B. Joseph (Ed.), Cultures of curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Routledge.
[5] Labaree, D. F. (2021). The dynamic tension at the core of the grammar of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(2), 28–32.
[6] Mehta, J. (2022). Toward a new grammar of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(5), 54–59.
[7] Ministry of Education. (2017). Te WhÄriki: He whÄriki mÄtauranga mÅ ngÄ mokopuna o Aotearoa/Early childhood curriculum (2nd
ed.). New Zealand Government.
[8] Morgan, J. (2021). Why we still need a political theory of the curriculum. In M. Lourie & G. McPhail (Eds.), Perspectives on the knowledge problem in New Zealand education: Towards equity (pp. 119–133). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2908-2_8
[9] Posner, G. J. (1998). Models of curriculum planning. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (2nd ed., pp. 79–100). State University of New York Press.
[10] Wall, J. (2024). Childism and the politics of social empowerment. In Childism and the Politics of Social Empowerment.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.70711/neet.v4i9.10077
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
