Nursery schools in England are state-funded schools catering specifically for children aged three and four. They form part of a complex early years sector which also includes private nursery provision (paid for in part by government-provided ‘free hours’), and nursery classes for three- and four-year-olds based in primary schools. Nursery schools are predominantly located in urban areas of disadvantage for historical reasons, and disproportionately cater for children from economically deprived backgrounds (Paull and Popov, 2019). Government policy rhetoric in the UK has prioritised the progress of disadvantaged children in early years, but we argue here that despite these claims, the current situation is a hostile policy environment for both disadvantaged children and nursery schools – described as the ‘jewel in the crown’ of early years (Powell, 2019) - in general.

The paper is based on findings from a pre-COVID project which aimed to explore the role of nursery schools in reducing disparities in attainment between ‘disadvantaged’ children and their peers. Here we are using the term ‘disadvantaged’ as per the government definition to mean those children in receipt of free school meals, those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), and those children in local authority care.

Nursery schools are one part of the complex picture of early years provision across England, which has evolved in a piecemeal fashion over the last hundred years (Penn, 2009). The continued debate over nursery schools and the alternative – nursery classes in primary and infant schools – has resulted in inconsistencies in policy support for nursery schools (Palmer, 2016), including at the present time. A 2014 survey showed that 74% of nursery school respondents were ‘concerned about their future viability’, particularly because of the funding unpredictability (Early Education, 2015).

Early years has been a source of interest for governments over the last twenty years (West et al, 2010), most recently under the ‘early intervention’ agenda of the Coalition and Conservative governments (Allen, 2011). The UK Conservative-led governments of the 2010s introduced a number of different policies which aimed to reduce the ‘disadvantage gap’, and several of these affect nursery schools. Most importantly, children aged two who are classed as ‘disadvantaged’ and all three-year-olds, receive 15 hours of free childcare per week, to be taken at a setting of the parent’s choosing. Then, three- and four-year-olds whose parents are both in work receive 30 hours of government funded time per week. Thus, children in poorer families where earnings are too little or irregular, or where one parent does not work, continue to receive only 15 hours when their child reaches three. This policy has also been controversial as the government funding is seen as inadequate and thus parents have been asked to ‘top up’ by paying for nappies, food and milk (Murray, 2017). In addition to this policy, nursery schools have been affected by changes to their funding formula, and wider societal changes such as rising house prices in London and increased child poverty (Thompson et al, 2019).

Using a theoretical framework influenced by policy sociology and policy enactment, in this paper we focus on the ‘context of practice’ part of the policy cycle: the way in which these policies operate in the schools themselves, and the impact on nursery schools’ roles in reducing disadvantage. The interview data reveal that this sector of early years which is most orientated towards these children is subject to a ‘hostile’ policy environment, where a combination of different policies threaten their very existence. Thus, though the policy rhetoric is focused on supporting disadvantaged pupils, the enactment of current policy instead sustains and exacerbates disparities between groups of children.

The research project involved case study research in four nursery schools located in urban and suburban areas of Greater London. One-to-one semi-structured interviews with up to five members of staff, comprising both practitioners and managers, were conducted in each nursery school. In the interviews staff were asked to discuss and reflect on their experiences, perceptions and understandings of the role of the nursery schools in the local community, recent policy changes, and the role of their school in reducing the effects of disadvantage. In selecting our sample we prioritized best case study examples of nursery schools; the selection criteria included settings that have been graded as good or outstanding by Ofsted in their most recent inspection. We also limited our sample to those schools in areas of high socio-economic deprivation, in line with the aims of the project. The final sample consisted of 17 participants in total, made up of 10 class teachers, six headteachers and deputy/assistant headteachers, and one nursery nurse. When collecting the data the research team adhered to an agreed set of procedures and parameters and to a research code of practice, to ensure the quality of data collected. The data were subjected to a thematic content analysis using NVivo and summarised by theme, with findings paralleled and contrasted, looking in particular for evidence of nursery schools’ role in improving the educational outcomes of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The research complied with the ethical protocols set out by the British Education Research Association (BERA) (2018). The research team obtained institutional ethical approval prior to fieldwork commencing. The research involved the collection of semi-structured interview data with consenting adults and therefore the ethical concerns addressed are issues of confidentiality, anonymity in terms of protecting the respondents’ identities and obtaining informed consent. A consent form was created for our participants to sign and this set out the conditions of participation in the proposed study including anonymity of identity, deletion of audio files once fully transcribed, the right to withdraw at any time and the right to not answer questions throughout the research process. Anonymity has been ensured by removing any identifying factors and through the use of pseudonyms.

Our findings are that there are number of different policy pressures on nursery schools which amount to a hostile policy environment. First, there are pressures on budgets which mean reductions in resources and limits on what nursery schools can do beyond their core function. Participants argued there was a need for a longer-term vision rather than a ‘hand-to-mouth’ existence. Second, the 15/30 hour policy has advantages in that some two-year-olds are present, but their continued reduced hours after age three mean that their experiences are shortened and less rich than those of their more affluent peers. As a policy, this is seen as a failure. Third, the recruitment and retention of staff is a problem given the expense of housing in London and the continued low status of early years staff. Staff emphasised the importance of highly trained staff, but noted that finding staff with appropriate qualifications is difficult. Finally, the broader context of increased poverty and need, created by years of austerity policy under Conservative-led governments, has resulted in increased workloads and pressure in nursery schools. However, we also note that there are a number of ways in which nursery school staff are still attempting to help disadvantaged children despite the limitations of policy, such as through outreach work and family support. The impact of these multiple pressures, where schools are fighting on a number of fronts, means that many nursery schools are in danger of closing down: only 392 remain, compared to around 500 in 2000 (Paull and Popov, 2019). Those that continue do so under increased pressure and budgetary uncertainty. We conclude that policies are counterproductive, creating a hostile environment where nursery schools, the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the early years sector which is most effective at reducing disadvantage, are made vulnerable or financially unsustainable.

Allen, G. (2011). Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings. London: HM Government. British Educational Research Association (2018) “Ethical Guidelines For Educational Research”. Accessed 1 August 2018. https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018 /06/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-for-Educational-Research_4thEdn_ 2018.pdf? noredirect=1 Early Education. (2015). Maintained nursery schools: the state of play. Retrieved 13 August 2018, from https://www.early-education.org.uk/press-release/maintained-nursery-schools-state-play Powell, L. (2019) Lucy Powell speech 31st July. House of Commons Backbench Business. Available from: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-01-31/debates/0AD4FA19-0825-45E4-BAE6-DFC321FA5688/MaintainedNurserySchools. Accessed 5/12/2019. Palmer, A. (2016) Nursery schools or nursery classes? Choosing and failing to choose between policy alternatives in nursery education in England, 1918–1972, History of Education, 45:1, 103-121, DOI: 10.1080/0046760X.2015.1066883 Paull, G. and Popov, D. (2019) The role and contribution of maintained nursery schools in the early years sector in England. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ governmentuploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/827731/Frontier_Economics_MNS_report_REVISED_v2.pdf. Penn, H. (2009) ‘Public and Private: the History of Early Education and Care Institutions in the United Kingdom’, in Childcare and Pre-School Development in Europe, ed. Scheiwe K. and Willekens, H., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 105–25. Thompson E, Jitendra A and Rabindrakumar S (2019) #5weekstoolong: Why we need to end the wait for universal credit. The Trussell Trust. Available at: https://www.trusselltrust.org /wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/PolicyReport_Final_ForWeb.pdf (accessed 14 January 2020). West, A., Roberts, J. and Noden, P. (2010) ‘Funding Early Years Education and Care: Can a Mixed Economy of Providers Deliver Universal High Quality Provision?’, British Journal of Education Studies 58 (2), 155–79.