Knots in the continuum – the tangled perspectives of Early Childhood Education in England

Early Childhood Education (ECE) has undergone a transformation of recognition and a process that has turbo-charged itself in recent years. While a growing understanding of the importance of the Birth-7 age range was always broadly accepted, the refocus on how this predicates life chances, development and success (in the widest sense) has established itself on global and national agendas, shaping aspirations and driving polices. The COVID 19 pandemic, was, at least in part, responsible for this, not in creating or identifying new challenges or assertions, but by shining an intense and unavoidable light on existing tensions and fault lines. For example, the impact this had on children’s emotional, physical, social, and linguistic development did not create new concerns but demonstrated how they were heavily affected by the restrictions of the pandemic.¹ While the global picture is an interesting one, not least because it illustrates the different political, social and policy led levels of development and understanding, the focus on the situation in England is particularly pertinent.

The development of Early Childhood Education provision was a key element of New Labour policy when it came to power in 1997. Along with a range of different initiatives to support children and parents, in terms of educational practice it built on the then previous Governments ‘Desirable Learning Outcomes’² to create more refined and granular support for Early Childhood Education through ‘Birth to 3 Matters’³ and the ‘Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage⁴. Assessed through the Foundation Stage Profile⁵ from 2003 onwards, these were amalgamated in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) in 2008⁶ with subsequent reviews and revisions in 2012⁷ and 2020.⁸

Fast forward to July 2025 and the publication of ‘The Best Start in Life’⁹ heralded a substantial reasserted shift in both the policy acknowledgement of the importance of Early Childhood Education, the critical role of Reception Year in the framing of Early Childhood Education  (something unintendedly downplayed by the previous Government) and perhaps most significantly, the specific and explicit focus on narrowing the disadvantage gap:

“The Government’s Plan for Change puts children at the heart of its priorities with the aim of a record proportion of children starting school ready to learn by 2028. Every child should have the opportunity to grow, play, learn and thrive. However, for too many children, their opportunities are limited by their background. That is why this government has set a mission: to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.”¹⁰

The expression of this aspiration is through the establishment of a target that will be measured by the percentage of children attaining a Good Level of Development (GLD) by the end of Reception Year, both in terms of raising the total number of children, but particularly focusing on the number of children defined as ‘disadvantaged’ through eligibility for free school meals.¹¹

“If we truly aspire for the best for all children and expect – demand – that this is facilitated so that their lives are successful, and if we acknowledge – as we should – that this is largely defined during their Early Childhood Education – then there are serious and uncomfortable questions to be asked.”

This issue – of the growing size of attainment gap based on Social Economic Status (SES) – is a critical one, specifically in terms of the realisation of potential for Early Childhood Education to be transformative. However, this also strays into how these challenge and disrupt some of the assumptions about children, their knowledge, experiences and cultural capital, and particularly how they engage with effective and impactful Curriculum and Pedagogical strategies and approaches. While policy is ostensibly shaped around the autonomy of Early Years Foundation Stage practitioners and the need to apply their professional judgement in the intensity of everyday practice, in reality this can often be compromised by external – often unintentional – factors. The influential impact of the senior leadership of schools, practitioners’ own confidence and self-assurance (or the lack of it) and the variable quality of continuous professional development (CPD) are all considerations in how effective Early Years Foundation Stage practice, within policy, is delivered. These are the knots in the continuum.

If we truly aspire for the best for all children and expect – demand – that this is facilitated so that their lives are successful, and if we acknowledge – as we should – that this is largely defined during their Early Childhood Education – then there are serious and uncomfortable questions to be asked.

The issue is a very real one. Annually produced data¹² shows that the attainment of Good Level of Development incrementally rises year on year,¹³ thus setting more children on a trajectory for success. There are strong correlations between attaining a Good Level of Development at the end of Reception Year and later academic success¹⁴.  This is particularly true, both positively and negatively in terms of children of lower Social Economic Status defined by eligibility for free school meals^.15 (While purely academic success is one dimension, it is a significantly  strong predicator and prerequisite of all dimensions of success: social, emotional, psychological and economical¹⁶, and therefore should not be underestimated in its own right.)  However, the gap between children defined by socio economic status, and defined by eligibility for free school meals, is growing annually;¹⁷ this is an unacceptable situation which establishes a negative trajectory that affects all future aspects of their life. As ‘Best Start in Life’ states:

“Children from low-income families are more likely to be missing basic developmental milestones. By age five, these children on average are almost five months behind their peers in development. Once children fall behind their peers it becomes increasingly difficult for them to catch up. This developmental gap continues to grow, and by the time they take their GCSEs at age 16, they are on average 19 months behind. This means these young people are less likely to leave school with essential qualifications and skills, will have fewer employment opportunities and around 10 years lower life expectancy.”^18.

Annually produced data shows that the attainment of Good Level of Development incrementally rises year on year, thus setting more children on a trajectory for success. However, the gap between children defined by socio economic status, and defined by eligibility for free school meals, is growing annually.

So, this brings us to the existential contradictions and tensions within the narratives and discourse of Early Childhood Education in England what we could describe as the knots in the continuum.  These knots form themselves invertedly through twists in educational culture, and while not deliberate can still be destructive.  An awareness of these and how policy can at least contain if not fully address them could have a profound impact on the outcomes for all children.

The contradictions comprise the aspirations for Early Childhood Education, the principles of its philosophy, and how these are sometimes, unintentionally, misapplied and misinterpreted to the detriment of the very children who most need their Early Childhood Education experience and outcomes to empower them and change their life trajectories.

As we have established, outcomes for the Early Years Foundation Stage show a steady improvement in the children attaining a Good Level of Development, but we have also established that this conceals a worryingly growing negative trajectory for children from lower Social Economic Status. In short, current practice and provision work for some children, especially those from a higher Social Economic Status and greatly benefit their academic outcomes with all that it implies. However, for some children, specifically a growing number of children who are eligible for free school meals –– current practice does not enable them to attain a Good Level of Development.

In October 2024, Ofsted published ‘Strong Foundations’¹⁹ a focus on their evidence base for the effectiveness of provision for children in Reception Year and Key Stage 1. In particular this explored the difference in attainment dependent on a child’s Social Economic Status. It identified this gap as being very visible in Reception Year: “Our evidence suggests that the children who are already the most knowledgeable and confident get the most out of Reception and key stage 1.”²⁰

In essence, this is where the emerging gap widens, so by the time children defined as disadvantaged children leave Reception Year, without attaining a Good Level of Development, the trajectory becomes worrying – and sadly – predictable.

The contradictions comprise the aspirations for Early Childhood Education, the principles of its philosophy, and how these are sometimes, unintentionally, misapplied and misinterpreted to the detriment of the very children who most need their Early Childhood Education experience and outcomes to empower them and change their life trajectories.

The report goes on to identify what it describes as the barriers to learning.  These provide a useful starting point to explore the implications of these barriers, and how these impact on perceptions and reflections on existing practice. The use of terminology such as ‘barriers’ and ‘obstacles’ is, in itself, significant because this challenges the assumption that learning and success are somehow predefined. The converse is, and it is more than just an aspirational starting point, to acknowledge the infinite potential of all children –regardless of their Social Economic Status.

“School leaders have not made clear what needs to be included and emphasised in the curriculum for children in Reception and key stage 1”^21.

The Curriculum – ‘what we want children to know / what children learn’ lies at the heart of practice and the purpose of Early Childhood Education.  While this may include ‘academic’ content, such as that assessed by the Good Level of Development, it includes a much larger brief and scope of everything that is learned. Critically it includes the very nature of learning itself and how children engage with the process. Learning Behaviours such as Executive Functioning is – or should be – an integral part of the Curriculum. These behaviours are ‘learned’ after all and play a crucial role in the child developing itself as an effective learner. Unsurprisingly, this too is often affected by the child’s Social Economic Status. Data from the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile and Good Level of Development attainment is very clear that there are specific groups of children, defined by a range of characteristics but overwhelmingly by their Social Economic Status, who are not progressing through the curriculum towards the outcomes described in the statutory Early Years Foundation Stage.

Often the curriculum does not take into account their specific needs, their cultural identity, their heritage, their specific and unique cultural capital and their specific experiences. It is unsurprising then that these children can become alienated from the curriculum itself, one that makes assumptions about their existing knowledge and experiences and can present this in a specific and exclusive cultural manner.  Far too often, as Ofsted acknowledges “learning is left to chance”²²; this is not an indictment of the children themselves but the mismatch between their experiences and the curriculum that they are offered; the more this is detached from their lives and experiences the less they will engage with it. Curricula in Early Childhood Education need to be the most flexible and inclusive that they can be. After all it is not about what children do but what they learn, and it is the learning that needs to be shaped around a context that children understand and are familiar with. The overriding assumptions of how knowledge and skills connect with children’s experiences need to be challenged to ensure that this explicitly facilities rather that unintentionally inhibits their progress.

“Teaching methods do not help children learn and remember important knowledge”^23.

Approaches to pedagogy, and the strategies used to support children’s learning development and progress are the fundamental aspect of effective practice. Pedagogical Strategies, and the decisions Early Childhood Education educators take on a moment-by-moment basis need to be responsible, flexible, adaptive, and above all owned by the educators themselves. This is sometimes referred to as a personal, professional pedagogical repertoire. Central to this is the ‘balance’ between adult led and child led activity. A central tenet of Early Childhood Education practice is that children have the opportunity to lead their own activity, making choices about what they want to do and what materials they need in order to do it. It is a critical part of the learning process because as they engage in this intrinsically motivated experience they are consolidating, internalising, exploring and rehearsing what they know and have been taught.  The issues arise when this does not happen, and educators feel compelled to follow a particular approach or process that may or may not be successful for the children that they work with. In particular, approaches need to eschew assumptions about a child’s experiences, their perception of learning, school – and indeed the adults who they will engage with. Unfortunately, it is one of the specific elements that open the gap between children defined by their Social Economic Status. An assumption about children’s experiences, knowledge and their types of cultural capital influence the approach taken by educators and often this can alienate the very children who need the most support. Some children will have had a range of experiences with resources and materials that they encounter in a typical classroom. For example, they will have built with bricks, explored the properties of sand, made creations out of clay and constructed stories using small world objects. For them the classroom and the resources in it are comfortingly and reassuringly familiar and they have a clear idea of what they want to do and how to approach their ideas, through their individual and unique fascinations and personal projects. These are the children who then go on to thrive, as they will inevitably secure and develop their learning – and perhaps most importantly their self-perception and confidence as a confident learner. Other children will enter the environment and perceive it as an alien place with resources they are not familiar with, and with adults whom they might be wary of. Again, because this is such a fundamental aspect of the Early Childhood Education experience, this is precisely one of the points at which the gap increases. What often exacerbates this is an educator’s expectation that the view of a child’s familiarity with the environment applies universally: it does not; if we are to truly transform a child’s trajectory then acknowledging this and adapting pedagogy needs to be a prime consideration.

“Assessment is weak”^24.

A useful – and accurate – definition of ‘Assessment’ is “Knowing the Child in order to support and enable their development and progression”.²⁵ Assessment is not just the systematic collection of progression and attainment data (information) , but the deep level knowledge and understanding of the child as a learner and the specific approaches needed to support progress and development. While this is – in theory at least – a core of effective Early Childhood Education practice, the interpretation of this, and how these shape pedagogical strategies, are more nuanced and refined than is often the case. In some cases, this interpretation can be subject to assumptions that make this at least ‘partial’ if not particularly responsible for widening the attainment gap.

Take for example this oft quoted statement from Loris Maaguzzi, the founder of the influential Pre-Schools of Reggio Emelia:

“The environment you construct around you and the children also reflects this image you have about the child. There’s a difference between the environment that you are able to build based on a preconceived image of the child and the environment that you can build that is based on the child you see in front of you — the relationship you build with the child, ….”²⁶

It is precisely that presumption of children’s knowledge and experiences, their understanding of the nature of what it expected and how provision ‘works’ that is the challenge that is not often recognised sufficiently nor acknowledged in the approaches to pedagogy. The relationship we build with the child needs to take into account everything, there can be no assumptions about what children already know, what experiences they have had and how they enact with an environment, and protocols which some – particularly those at most risk of not thriving – find alienating and unfamiliar. So, the challenge is to build a truly inclusive and accurate knowledge of the child; developing this relationship opens the possibility for a true knowledge that can be subsequently built on.

“Schools do not instill the behaviour and attitudes necessary for children to learn successfully” ⁽¹⁹⁾

Access to the Curriculum, the process of learning and the achievement of knowledge is not a single dimensional process. Acquiring knowledge and skills, developing understanding and harnessing the ability to make sense of and apply that in an intellectual capacity is dependent on the quality and depth of what is often termed ‘Learning Behaviours’²⁷. These underpin and drive access to the curriculum through a range of cognitive, emotional, psychological and physical processes than enable this. The psychological view of learning, and how this is enabled, strongly identifies aspects such as executive functioning, cognitive flexibility, self-regulation and emotional literacy;²⁸ as critical is establishing the underpinning framework to enable academic and intellectual success. However, it is also recognised that contrary to some beliefs these are not ‘innate’ behaviours that children are born with but learned through experiences and contexts that support this. Therefore, as learned behaviours these are teachable. Additionally, as learned behaviours, these are acquired differently by different children in different circumstances. For example, opportunities for back-and-forth interactions, experiences of a ranges of cultural capital, development of language and vocabulary size are all significant contexts for enabling Learning Behaviours. Not surprisingly, factors such as Social Economic Status can be a significant variable in this and therefore, once again, impact on children’s starting points and likely trajectories.

Once again, the issue is one of assumption and understanding of what is possible. All children can develop their learning behaviours, and need to, but for some children these needs to be explicitly acknowledged, identified and supported. Again, the absence of this is precisely where the attainment gap will ultimately establish itself and grow. Learning Behaviours, and how they underpin attainment needs to be a priority alongside and in conjunction with more concrete academic outcomes assessed through the Good Level of Development.

Effective and well considered Early Childhood Education practice is and can be transformative. Studies such as ‘Performing against the Odds’²⁹ and the ‘High Achieving White Working Class Boys Project’³⁰ vividly demonstrate the possibility of how finely tuned and explicit practice and policies impact on the ultimate trajectories for children who are statistically at risk of not thriving.

So, the challenge for Early Childhood Education is to unpick these knots in the continuum, to review and refine practice in the light of the specific needs of the children we work with, knowing that some children will always thrive ³¹, but others need direct and explicit support to ensure their onward trajectories can be positive rather than negative.

Focussing on a carefully considered curriculum that ensures the content of learning is prioritised over what the child does is an important starting point. The confidence to adapt how knowledge and skills are presented and contextualised, and the importance of how this needs to reflect and connect with existing – albeit growing – experience is a vital consideration for all Early Childhood Education educators

Additionally developing a dynamic pedagogy that emanates from the true knowledge of the child, eschews assumptions and empowers educators to take real, considered choices and decisions.

 While this development and increased understanding is dependent on Early Years Foundation Stage educators themselves, inevitably it exists within a context that shapes and defines it. As previously alluded to, there are three specific aspects that impact on Early Years Foundation Stage educators’ ability to do this.

1. The role of senior leadership in Primary Schools

Recognising and acknowledging the importance of the Early Years Foundation Stage phase, in general, but particularly in relation to children from disadvantaged backgrounds is a fundamental driver to ensuring that provision is appropriate, impactful and progressive. Statistically, it is unusual for Primary leaders to have had significant and immersive Early Years Foundation Stage teaching experience. While there is always an authentic commitment to good outcomes for children in the Early Years Foundation Stage, there is not always the deep understanding of how this is fully achieved and how complex and ‘counterintuitive’ this can be in practice. For example, writing does not begin with a child holding a pencil and forming letters. It begins with the parallel strategies of developing core muscle strength that ultimately enables fine motor control and the understanding of the purpose of writing through language, stories and adults transcribing children’s words into written text, With the renewed emphasis on Early Years Foundation Stage in general  – and Reception Year in particular – there is a risk that this tension might be unintentionally exacerbated. Therefore, a clear, mandatory programme of continuing professional development for senior leaders – and aspiring senior leader who have not had significant Early Years Foundation Stage experiences should be a key priority for development.

2. The confidence of Early Years Foundation Stage Educators

The profile and status Early Years Foundation Stage educators has been greatly elevated in recent years, albeit from a very low starting point. The creation of the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile and the Good Level of Development (GLD) to support and aid accountability has also added to the growing understanding of the importance of the Early Years Foundation Stage. However, within this – and there is clearly a distance to be travelled – Early Years Foundation Stage educators have retained a lack of confidence and self-awareness that extends beyond the immediate Early Years Foundation Stage community. While a ‘siege mentality’ and the need to ‘other’ Early Years Foundation Stage practice is understandable this does not assist the greater recognition that is so clearly and urgently needed. Policies and initiative need to recognise the uniqueness of Early Years Foundation Stage practice and the complex individual decisions that educators take in order to optimise their support for the children that they work with. The overarching Early Years Foundation Stage statement “Practitioners need to decide what they want children in their setting to learn, and the most effective ways to teach it.”⁽³²⁾ creates the cornerstone for this, both for Early Years Foundation Stage educators and those outside the sector but care need to be taken that this principle and the autonomy it provides continues to be reasserted whenever necessary.

3. The quality of Early Years Foundation Stage continuing professional development

While there is an abundance of opportunities, (funded, chargeable, in -person and virtual) for Early Years Foundation Stage Educators to access on-going development and support, there is little no quality Assurance to ensure that this is appropriate, value for money, research based and will impact on outcomes for children. While the continuing professional development available through the Stronger Practice Hubs (SPH) initiative have clear and rigorous parameters for this, there is a vast array of available continuing professional development that does not, and, at best, is ‘variable’ in terms of quality. Clear advice needs to be provided for Early Years Foundation Stage educators that where not Quality Assured, continuing professional development they access needs to ensure that:

1. The continuing professional development needs to demonstrate how it will have a quantifiable impact on outcomes for children. Whatever these are, and however circuitous the route might be, the primary purpose of all continuing professional development needs to ensure that it improves and develops practice and provision and increases the progress that children achieve.
2. The continuing professional development enables and empowers the Early Years Foundation Stage educators to articulate their craft and be transformative in enabling them to be confident in describing how and why they did what they did.
3. The content of the continuing professional development is transferable, acknowledging the universal nature of children’s development, progress and the feature of effective practice regardless of cultural, social or environmental contexts and which Curriculum has been developed.

This will, ultimately enable us to devise policy and strategic support to enable all educators to fully understand children, their starting points, their needs and their unique pathways to success. It will enable us to adapt and refine what children truly need and can connect with, and it is this that will ensure all children will be successful.

Footnotes

1. ‘Early years education: Trends, issues and the impact of Covid-19’, Goddard, J, House of Lords Library, 23 November 2023.
2. ‘Nursery Education: Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Education’, Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 1996.
3. ‘Sure Start, Birth to Three Matters: A framework to support children in their earliest years’, London, 2003.
4.  ‘Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage’,, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2000.
5. The Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Stage Profile Assessment Arrangements) (England) Order 2003, SI 2003/1327, made under the Education Act 2002. This Order established statutory assessment arrangements for the Foundation Stage Profile
6. Department for Children, Schools and Families, Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage, (2008)
7. Department for Education, Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (2012)
8. ‘Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: EYFS reforms’, Department for Education, 2020.
9. Department for Education, Giving every child the best start in life, 2025.
10. Ibid op cit p11.
11. ibid op cit p12.
12.  Department for Education (DFE) EYFS Profile, Statistical First Release (SFR) 2024-2025.
13.  Ibid.
14. ‘Early years assessment predicts English and maths GCSE results, study finds’, Callum Mason, Times Education Supplement, 1 September 2022.
15. ‘Early Years: Understanding Progress’ House of Commons Education Committee, 2016; ‘The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project’, EPPE team, DfES / Institute of Education.
16. OECD. (2010). ‘The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes’, OECD Publishing.
17. Department for Education, SFR Op cit
18.  Department for Education, ‘Giving every child the best start in life, 2025, p13.
19.  Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) “Strong foundations in the first years of school”, 2024.
20. OFSTED, 2024, op cit.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25.  ‘Effective Assessment in the EYFS’, Jan Dubiel, SAGE, 2013.
26. ‘Your Image of the Child: Where Teaching Begins’, Loris Malaguzzi, 1994:
27. Dubiel, J. (2023, November 2). ‘How children learn’, Nursery World. /
28. Centre For Research in Early Childhood ‘Getting it right in the EYFS Literature Review, 2019.
29.  DfE Research Report DFE-RR128 ‘Performing against the odds: developmental trajectories of children in the EPPSE 3 to 16 study’, 2011.
30. , ‘High Achieving White Working Class (HAWWC) Boys Project’, Centre for Research in Early Childhood, 2016.
31. OFSTED, 2024 op cit.
32. DfE ‘Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage’, Department for Education, 2020. 1.14