‘Doing Reggio?’ Exploring the complexity of ‘curriculum’ migration through a comparison of Reggio Emilia, Italy and the EYFS, England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper begins a quarter of a century ago with the first visit to the UK of the Reggio Emilia exhibition ‘The Hundred Languages of Children’ and initial interest by some of the early education community in ‘doing Reggio’. Within the same period, the move to introduce a formal curriculum for young children in England and Wales began, initially with the Desirable Outcomes documents in 1996 (SCAA) and more recently with the latest incarnation of the Early Years Foundation Stage. This paper first explores key aspects of the Reggio Emilia approach before turning to the development of the curriculum for young children within England, making visible key differences between these two ways of working. Drawing on Foucauldian discourses, I aim to demonstrate that curricula models are underpinned by socially constructed discourses and that as the discourse of ‘school readiness’ has tightened its stranglehold on early years policy within England, the likelihood of ‘doing Reggio’ has been eroded significantly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".