The school-based nurseries programme could be Labour’s early years legacy – but there are real problems with it
(The Photolibrary Wales/Alamy)
4 min read
Something significant is happening in childcare policy in England.
The recent expansion of funded childcare hours means public spending on the early years is high, with much of that money flowing to private providers. But alongside that expansion, a second policy has quietly been taking shape – one that could fundamentally alter who provides those childcare and early education places. Launched in late 2024, the government’s school-based nursery (SBN) programme is aiming to create 3,000 new or expanded nurseries across England, making use of empty classrooms left behind by falling birth rates to provide new early years spots.
It marks a genuine shift in direction. Successive governments have left the expansion of childcare largely to the market, with a steady erosion of state-run early years places: standalone maintained nursery schools have been in long-term decline; Sure Start children’s centres – the last big Labour intervention – were stripped of their requirement to provide childcare in disadvantaged areas in 2010; and the share of early years places provided by private nurseries has grown. The school-based nursery programme is the first direct attempt since then to increase state involvement.
But are these school-based nurseries working, as childcare and as early education? And are they reaching the children who need them most? In new joint research between the Sutton Trust and the Social Market Foundation, we examined the programme in detail. Our findings suggest SBNs have real promise – but also real problems, with wider learnings for the future of early years policy in England.
There are positive signs so far: staff in SBNs tend to be highly qualified, with the potential to share staff between both the nursery and school; SEND needs can be identified earlier; and the transition into reception is often smoother. For children from the poorest homes, who are more likely to start school already behind their peers, these advantages matter enormously.
But SBNs also have real limitations. Many offer shorter hours and term-time only places – a serious barrier for many working parents. They also often do not offer places to the youngest children. And there is a risk that a new school-based nursery in an area could draw parents away from an existing private provider, which then closes – leaving families who needed longer or more flexible hours without any option at all.
There is also a stark gap between the programme’s ambitions and its progress. We found limited appetite among schools to set up further nurseries where none currently exist, with barriers including a lack of suitable space, high start-up costs and concerns about financial viability. Notably, the programme funds initial building work but nothing beyond that. Without major changes, the programme looks likely to fall well short of its 3,000 target.
Most concerning, the nurseries being created are not reaching the communities that need them. New school-based nurseries are opening with lower proportions of free school meals-eligible children than existing ones – even after the government adjusted the programme to try to encourage provision in disadvantaged areas. The recent announcement that Best Start Family Hubs – the successor to Sure Start, targeted at poorer areas – will be able to access funding to create new childcare places is a welcome step. But even with more spaces available, many of the poorest children aren’t eligible for funded hours due to family work requirements, so will still miss out.
Most concerning, the nurseries being created are not reaching the communities that need them
The school-based nursery programme has the ingredients to be a genuine legacy for this government, and in the long term, learnings from the programme could alter the structure of the early years system more widely, including the balance of state and private provision. But without more support for ongoing running costs, stronger incentives to set up in the areas that need provision most and a serious effort to tackle the barriers that stop low-income families accessing funded hours, the programme will stall – and with it, potentially the chance for greater state involvement in the early years.
The government has a rare opportunity to reshape childcare and early education in this country. It must not be wasted.
Dr Rebecca Montacute is research director at the Social Market Foundation and Erica Holt-White is research and policy manager at the Sutton Trust
