Critical discourse analysis of the EYLP 'reading' manuals identified the texts as problematic in terms of the way they deal with research.
(1996) in the Success for All program in the USA, and also by the EYLP's Early Literacy Research Project (ELRP) pilot project that preceded it.
The construction of early years reading encapsulated within the EYLP is somewhat narrow as a significant amount of other reading research is excluded.
These views align with the view of reading advocated by the EYLP. The following three themes that emerged from the data analysis of the research identified the teachers' roles in the RPPN: teachers as implementers, teachers as innovators and teachers as survivors.
The data in this study indicate that the implementation of the EYLP impacted upon the participating teachers' roles by positioning them as 'implementers'.
The Early Years Coordinator position that was initiated in schools as a part of the EYLP also positions teachers as 'implementers'.
The rhetoric of the EYLP as an intervention program that develops a shared understanding of reading by working in partnership with teachers and parents is undermined by the fact that its discourse implicitly positions its own knowledge, principles and practices as expert.
Most of the teachers interviewed reported developing a number of coping strategies in order to be able to implement the EYLP while dealing with time and resource limitations.
The EYLP requires daily implementation of the literacy block between 9 and 11 a.m.
In this manner some teachers found it necessary to modify their implementation of the EYLP as a means of survival: to minimise impracticalities in order to better meet the learning needs of their students.
Most teachers assumed that the EYLP had a sound research-base and so did not critique it or seek other literacy research.
The EYLP was identified as contributing to the de-professionalisation of teachers through its discourse and prescribed structures.