REBECCA UNDERWOOD, RESEARCH IMPACT ASSISTANT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TEACHING, UK
Despite all the speeches, strategies and pledges promising equity in education, the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), including Reception, is still waiting to be treated as an equal. EYFS pedagogy is too often misunderstood, undervalued or ignored in the decisions that shape the profession’s direction. The central claim of ‘Development matters’ rings out: ‘No job is more important than working with children in the early years.’ (DfEDepartment for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England, 2023a, p. 4) Every policy, pathway and pay scale should reflect this.
When EYFS carries status, whole schools and trusts flourish. It becomes a catalyst – the phase where pedagogy sits closest to the science of learning, blending care, cognition and curiosity in ways that later phases strive to recover. Purposeful play and rich conversation allow understanding to grow through doing and wondering – the very conditions, as Pascal and Bertram (2023, p. 305) write, that allow children to ‘flourish and lead fulfilled lives with a sense of wellbeing’. The OECD (2021, p. 26) emphasises the long-term value of early learning, noting its power ‘to support children’s well-being and to realise the numerous benefits of focusing on this period of the life course’.
These early habits of inquiry continue to shape thinking long after Reception. Research on playful pedagogies across infant, first and second classes (O’Sullivan et al., 2025) shows that play holds power across the primary continuum, sustaining curiosity, collaboration and deep understanding. The resilience to try again and the confidence to have a voice and be heard are nurtured in Reception classrooms – foundational learning that precedes every metric and test. Yet across the system, EYFS receives less professional regard than later phases, despite holding the blueprint for how learning truly begins.
I’ve experienced the reality behind this imbalance: the “you just play all day” comment offered in jest but with an undercurrent of disdain; the idea that Reception is somehow a softer option; the implicit ranking of the school, in which the ‘real teaching’ happens elsewhere. Dunn (2022) reminds us that many still picture adults “just” playing on the floor when they hear the word “play”. In practice, early years staff are invited to INSETs with limited relevance to their practice, and skilled practitioners are left out of curriculum discussions because their phase is rarely considered integral. I have even been told that EYFS should be more formal – more work in books, more whole-class instruction, more sitting still – despite decades of evidence that play-based, child-led learning leads to stronger outcomes over time. This pressure towards formality grows louder each year, fuelled by leaders who have never taught in EYFS and have no grounding in its pedagogy, even as research continues to call for developmental alignment across the early primary phases, reminding us that young children need hands-on, play-based experiences that grow from their interests, rather than formal teaching approaches (Birth to 5 Matters, 2021).
Early years educators are too often cast as ‘natural carers’ rather than highly skilled professionals. The complex pedagogy of play, observation and responsive teaching is seen as ‘instinctive’ rather than skilled expertise, a perception echoed in recent research showing that many early years educators are still described in ‘protective, instinctive and gendered roles that do not require knowledge’ (Irvine et al., 2023, p. 1920). This lens restricts CPD (continuing professional development) access, limits voice in decision-making and closes doors. Osgood (2010) describes how as a ‘highly gendered employment sector, strongly associated with the affective realms of caring and nurturance, ECEC becomes understood as lacking in professionalism precisely because it is deemed hyper-feminine’ (p. 121). This has deep implications for equity.
We know from research (Bonetti, 2019) that EYFS staff face lower pay, less stability and fewer progression opportunities than colleagues in other phases. According to the Department for EducationThe ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England (DfE, 2023b), between 2020 and 2023, the early years sector lost the equivalent of 12,009 Level 3 practitioners and 1,539 staff with degrees. This decline has been driven by low pay, long working hours and the persistent failure to recognise the complexity and expertise of practice. ‘Low wages, feeling undervalued, poor working conditions and limited opportunities for professional development cause problems both for recruitment and retention.’ (DfE, 2023b, p. 12) Morale has been eroded; many practitioners describe feeling demotivated and devalued (House of Commons Education Committee, 2023). The Early Years Alliance (2023) warns of a staffing crisis so severe that it leaves ‘parents to be continually disrupted in their childcare and early education due to chronic recruitment and retention issues’ (p. 12). RAND calls professional development for the UK’s early years workforce ‘a priority, not a perk’ (Speciani, 2025).
A shift in stance is overdue: EYFS expertise deserves recognition, strengthened policy, thoughtful CPD and genuine parity; equity experienced and not just espoused; time to learn; phase-relevant professional development; an explicit career path into leadership; pay and conditions that are commensurate with responsibility; and a voice in the early years at all strategic tables, turning policy into practice. Many practitioners feel a deep sense of vocation, yet this belief that ‘pay and status are less important’ leaves them open to exploitation (Duncan, 2024).
In July 2025, the government published its plan for improving child development and meeting the ambition that 75 per cent of five-year-olds in England will have a good level of development by 2028 (DfE and Phillipson, 2025). This followed calls for the government to produce a refreshed, comprehensive strategy for the early years workforce, building on the 2017 early years workforce strategy, with a focus on recruitment and progression (DfE, 2017; Social Mobility Commission, 2020; LGA, 2023). The strategy recognises key issues such as a lack of recognition, access to training, limited progression routes and that ‘early years staff feel overworked, overlooked and undervalued’ (DfE and Phillipson, 2025, p. 41).
The government’s call for a refreshed workforce strategy is welcome, yet it leaves the deeper cultural issues untouched. A strategy can open the door, but lived practice determines whether equity takes hold or fades.
Leadership pathways reveal the same quiet pattern. In too many schools, progression is tied to moving ‘up’ into later year groups, as though mastery of early years teaching is a stage to pass through rather than a legitimate, specialist career destination. Staff are often asked to ‘move down to Reception’. This quiet hierarchy drains expertise from the phase that needs it most, and is demoralising for those who have invested years in honing their craft. ‘Many move on to a career in primary teaching instead, where there may be higher pay or greater perceptions of recognition.’ (DfE, 2023c).
Some of the most effective progression models are small in scale but high in impact. One school ran Lesson Study with mixed-phase groups, deliberately including EYFS staff to explore oracy development. Another shaped its coaching around provision walks, weaving reflection into the very spaces where children’s thinking takes flight. As Rempe-Gillen (2017) notes, ‘cross-phase and cross-school collaboration provides a great wealth of opportunities for teachers to develop’ (p. 22). When early years practitioners are given access to thoughtful, tailored development, the impact is immediate. Confidence grows. Language shifts. And the wider school benefits from the deep pedagogical insight that EYFS teams bring.
When CPD agendas, leadership pathways and research structures are not built with early years in mind, they cannot meaningfully support the workforce. The government’s own review of early years workforce stability warns that low pay, poor progression opportunities and rising workloads are driving practitioners away (DfE, 2022).
We need a career structure that allows educators to deepen their expertise within the phase whilst also leading research, mentoring colleagues and taking on strategic roles. This would signal genuine respect for EYFS mastery. As the Early Years Alliance (2023) warns, without reform, we risk losing experienced practitioners faster than we can replace them, with damaging consequences for children and families.
Research tells us repeatedly that the early years are crucial to a child’s life chances. These foundations underpin the skills that sustain success throughout education and life; ‘creative thinking is one of the highest order thinking skills needed for 21st century success’ and is ‘associated with problem solving, divergent thinking, wellbeing and employability’ (Paatsch et al., 2024, p. 58). OfstedThe Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills – a non-ministerial department responsible for inspecting and regulating services that care for children and young people, and services providing education and skills (2022) highlights that ‘the rate of children’s development depends on their interactions with adults’. It stresses that ‘every interaction between a practitioner and a child is a teaching opportunity’. Yet the workforce responsible for these life-shaping outcomes often receives limited opportunities to engage with research, to lead innovation or to shape policy.
However, a shift is emerging. The Education Endowment Foundation’s (2023) ‘Early years toolkit’ signals that early childhood pedagogy merits the same rigour, clarity and visibility as other phases. Building on this momentum, the National Institute of Teaching’s new Evidence Portal offers a practical response, widening access to clear, usable research for all phases and nurturing a more equitable research culture across the profession (NIoT, 2025).
Other phases have much to learn from EYFS practice. As Fisher reminds us, ‘children do not suddenly stop needing the approaches that supported their learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage’ (2010, p. 2), and ‘effective Year 1 practice builds on, rather than contrasts with, the pedagogy of the Foundation Stage’ (2013, p. 9). In a climate of concern about behaviour and wellbeing, this pedagogy restores awe and wonder, and gives pupils (and staff) purposeful work and agency. The EYFS model integrates social, emotional and cognitive learning, as well as promoting critical thinking skills. It teaches that assessment is as much about noticing and listening as it is about recording and measuring. Yet these approaches are still too often dismissed as soft, while older pupils face increasingly narrow, test-focused routines.
The success of the whole system depends on the strength of its foundations. Every educator, policymaker and community member must recognise that early childhood education is not preparation for ‘real learning’ but specialised, deeply skilled work that shapes the architecture of developing minds. Ensuring equity in this field is not just a professional responsibility; it is a moral imperative.
