This article considers the extent to which the needs and aspirations of teachers are taken into account in three examples of current Primary and Early Years documentation--the National Curriculum, the Early Years Foundation Stage and the Primary Framework. This analysis is done through three methods: a critical discourse analysis of the aims and purposes of each; an analysis of models of power; and an analysis of models of pedagogy. The article reveals that teachers and teaching are not well represented within the aims and purposes of two of the documents, but that equally there are pedagogic behaviours within the teaching profession that do not aspire to autonomy. Recent documentation has tended to be accompanied by prescribed systematic pedagogy, which has created perceived tensions within the profession, yet the data show that many teachers seek to be professionally passive in terms of the planning demands of documentation. This article suggests that where there are identifiable tensions, these are not found simply between teachers (collectively) and imposed documentation, but between some teachers and some aspects of documentation.