• Survey carried out by the Early Years Alliance shows half of early years providers think the gap between poorer children and their peers has widened since the start of the pandemic.
   
• Six in 10 say fewer children across all backgrounds at their setting are now reaching expected levels of attainment compared to before the pandemic.
   
• Eight in 10 say that the government is not doing enough to support early years providers to tackle the impact of the pandemic on learning and development of young children.

Nearly half of early years providers believe that the attainment gap between disadvantaged young children and their peers had widened since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, a new survey from leading early years organisation the Early Years Alliance has found.

The online survey of more than 1,300 education professionals working in nurseries, pre-schools and childminding settings in England found that 47% believe the attainment gap has grown among under-fives over the course of the pandemic, with 11% describing the gap as “significantly bigger”.

59% of respondents reported fewer children from all backgrounds were meeting the expected level of early attainment in physical development, communication and language development, and personal, social and emotional development (collectively described as the ‘prime areas of early learning and development’) since the start of the pandemic.

Looking specifically at the impact of the first national lockdown (from 23 March to 1 June), more than half (54%) of respondents said that they observed negative changes in the learning and development of children when they returned to their setting after lockdown.

Of those that observed negative changes, around four in 10 (42%) said that these were more evident in children from more economically disadvantaged backgrounds, with 94% identifying personal, social and emotional development and 82% identifying communication and language development as being particularly impacted.

More than eight in 10 (82%) respondents said that the government is not doing enough to support early years providers to tackle the impact of the pandemic on under-fives, with many citing a lack of adequate financial resources and an inability to invest in additional staff to offer targeted support.

To date, the government has invested £1.7bn into its education ‘recovery programme’ to date; however, only £10m (0.6%) of this funding is available to early years settings.

Commenting on the survey results, Neil Leitch, Early Years Alliance chief executive said:

“The early years workforce is deeply committed to supporting children and families, and has done a fantastic job throughout the pandemic continuing to deliver care and education at great personal risk and with almost no additional support.

“Practitioners responding to the survey said they know exactly what children at their settings most need to recover lost skills and confidence, and that the only thing stopping them from taking action is a lack of resources. It is therefore vital that nurseries, pre-schools and childminders are given dedicated financial support for recovery, and the autonomy to use it as they see fit.

“Proper funding would enable the targeted interventions needed to improve children’s personal, social and emotional development alongside their physical development, which many respondents noted have suffered as a result of being cut off from their friends and opportunities to play and explore.

“Given the proven link between investment in early years and better educational and social outcomes, especially for the most disadvantaged children, a failure to invest now would be unforgiveable.”

Survey respondent quotes:

• “Children coming to me for the first time or returning after extended periods with only their parents are clingy, upset and afraid of strangers. They have lost the ability to play independently. They are taking a long time to settle away from their parents. Some have returned with very good literacy and numeracy skills but are nowhere near where they should be with personal, social and emotional development, or physical and self-care skills. They are lacking in gross motor skills because they have been indoors a lot and some who could put on their own shoes before lockdown have forgotten how.”
   
• “They expect me to pick them up and carry them when they can walk perfectly well. They look at toys and loose parts blankly, with no idea how to explore and use their imaginations. They often ask for the TV or to play with my phone and are confused when I tell them ‘no’. I worry about what this year has done to their development and how long it will take to make up for lost learning.”

• “The only thing preventing us from delivering all the interventions we would like to be able to deliver is a lack of finances. We are running with the minimum level of staff to meet the statutory requirements, because we cannot afford to pay additional staff. More staff would enable more and more effective interventions which would have a huge impact on the learning and development of all our children but particularly those that are currently underachieving.”
   
• “There needs to be more money given to early years settings so they can address the gaps in children’s learning and the workforce need the same recognition as teachers.”
   
• “We need more funding and a better understanding in government of what early years is and does. When you hear ministers talk about three- and four-year-olds, you get the impression that they have no understanding of what a child of this age does or is capable of.”
   
• “As a professional in the early years, it saddens me that we are rarely mentioned as key educators throughout this pandemic. It has also been difficult to access support from external professionals to support children with additional needs and behavioural issues as they are not allowed to visit and it is our policy not to have visitors at this time.”
   
• “Our children and families need support now. If we do not invest this time and support now, we will see the consequences as these children continue their educational journey.”

EDITOR’S NOTES

This release and the results of the Alliance survey are under strict embargo until 12:00 midday on Friday 14 May 2021.

• The survey was carried out between Thursday 4 March and Monday 15 March 2021 and received 1,316 responses.
   
• Providers and practitioners operating or working at more than one setting were asked to consider just one setting.
   
• Where the survey referred to children from “more economically disadvantaged backgrounds” providers were asked to think about children who are eligible for the Early Years Pupil Premium, children who are eligible for two-year-old early entitlement funding, OR any children who, with their professional experience, they judged to be from a more economically disadvantaged background.
   
• There is no means tested scheme for under-twos so respondents were offered the opportunity of ‘cannot say’ for questions that asked about disadvantaged under twos.
   
• “Since the start of the pandemic” was defined as March 2020 onwards.
   
• The prime areas of learning and development refers to those set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), the statutory framework for early years education in England. They are:
   
  • • Communication and language
    • Physical development
    • Personal, social and emotional development

 

SURVEY QUESTIONS

How would you describe your provision? Please choose the closest option.                        

• Nursery: 27%
• Pre-school: 57%
• Childminder: 9%
• Maintained nursery school: 0%
• Primary school nursery class: 1%
• Out-of-hours club: 1%
• Specialist provision: 0%
• Other (please specify): 4%

 

Thinking about the overall learning and development of the children of all ages at your setting, since the start of the pandemic (i.e. March 2020), do you think that the gap – if you believe any exists – between children from more-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and all other children at your setting has widened?

• Yes, the gap is significantly bigger than before the pandemic: 11%
• Yes, the gap is somewhat bigger than before the pandemic: 29%
• Yes, there wasn’t a gap before the pandemic but there is now: 7%
• The gap has stayed the same: 36%
• No, the gap is somewhat smaller than before the pandemic: 3%
• No, the gap is significantly smaller than before the pandemic: 0%
• No, there wasn’t a gap before the pandemic and there still isn’t: 12%

 

Since the start of the pandemic (March 2020), has there been a change in the overall number of children at your setting at or above the expected level of attainment in the prime areas of learning and development?                                

• Yes, substantially fewer children are at the expected level: 17% 
• Yes, somewhat fewer children are at the expected level: 42%     
• No, roughly the same number are at the expected level: 37%      
• Yes, somewhat more children are at the expected level: 3%         
• Yes, substantially more children are at the expected level: 1%    

 

When your setting reopened to all children following the first national lockdown, did you observe any changes to the level of development of children who had not attended your setting during this period?                                                             

• Yes: 75%
• No: 25%

 

What changes to the overall levels of attainment in the prime areas of learning and development, if any, did you observe in children [aged under two / aged two years old / aged three- or four-years-old] who returned to your setting after lockdown?

Under 2s

2-year-olds

3- / 4-year-olds

Significant positive changes:

2%

2%

3%

Somewhat positive changes:

8%

8%

7%

Neither positive nor negative changes:

16%

22%

16%

Somewhat negative changes:

65%

59%

65%

Significant negative changes:

9%

9%

9%

 

In which areas of development in particular did you observe these negative changes? Please select all that apply.

Under 2s

2-year-olds

3- / 4-year-olds

Physical development:

25%

24%

27%

Communication and language:

75%

78%

74%

Personal, social and emotional development

94%

94%

95%

  

In your view, was this negative change more evident or less evident in [under twos / two year olds / three- or four-year-olds] from more economically disadvantaged background than all other children at your setting?

Under 2s

2-year-olds

3- / 4-year-olds

Significantly more evident:

9%

9%

9%

Somewhat more evident:

27%

37%

34%

No difference:

46%

51%

54%

Somewhat less evident:

3%

2%

3%

Significantly less evident:

1%

0%

0%

Cannot say (e.g. because it is not possible/too difficult identify more economically-disadvantaged children in this age group):

15%

n/a

n/a

 

Has the number of new children joining your setting over the course of the year since the start of the pandemic been higher than, lower than or roughly the same as normal (i.e. pre-pandemic)?

• Significantly higher: 4% 
• Somewhat higher: 13% 
• Roughly the same: 26% 
• Somewhat lower: 30%  
• Significantly lower: 27%

 

Are there any children at your setting who did not attend your setting during the first national lockdown and have still not returned?                                          

• Yes: 46%
• No: 54%

 

How concerned are you that the gap in attainment between more economically-disadvantaged children and their peers is widening in the early years as a result of the pandemic?

1 (Not at all concerned)

2

3

4

5 (Very concerned)

15%

20%

36%

21%

9%

 

Do you think that the government is doing enough to support early years providers to tackle the impact of the pandemic on learning and development of children aged under five?

• Yes, the government is doing more than enough: 1%
• Yes, the government is doing enough: 10%
• No, the government is not doing enough: 82%
• N/A – I don’t think the pandemic has had an impact on the learning and development of children aged under five: 8%