Failing to support the most disadvantaged children from their earliest years has severe and costly consequences. Athene Donald and Nicola Padfield argue that government policies excluding the poorest families from vital nursery provision set children on a path toward poor school readiness, a higher likelihood of becoming NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), and even future criminality. This approach is not only morally wrong but also a false government economy, costing society far more in the long run.
It is, of course, in everyone’s interest to give every child the best start in life. Given this, the government’s commitment as part of its opportunity mission to “accessible, integrated baby and early childhood services to build the foundations for future success” is a positive one. However, the recent extension of 30 hours of funded pre-school nursery support per week will not be available to families with the lowest income, or to those dependent on benefits, as there is a minimum income requirement for eligibility of £9,518. These families would need to pay out around £200 a week per child (approximately £10,000 per year) for the same access. This gap in early years intervention for more disadvantaged children will have long-term negative consequences, and runs counter to the kind of whole-system thinking mission-led government is meant to encourage.
One consequence is that the most socially-disadvantaged children will not gain the benefits such as early socialisation and language skills that nursery education can provide. And as a result, the most socially-disadvantaged children will be less likely to be school-ready when they enter formal school provision than their peers who are eligible for the entitlement.
This matters because school readiness is shown to be a good indicator of subsequent thriving. For example, in a study using data from children in Bradford, Warburton et al (2024) found that school readiness was significantly associated with NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) status a dozen or so years later. The research showed that children exhibiting a poor level of school readiness at four to five years of age are nearly three times as likely to be NEET 12 years later (11% vs. 4%). Interventions to promote school readiness in those children at an early age can therefore be directly linked with the likelihood or otherwise of becoming a NEET. Attendance at a nursery is a straightforward, relatively easy and cheap way to promote development, as well as to pick up more fundamental issues that may feed into later SEND (special educational needs and disability) diagnoses; an area where much attention is currently focussed. Letting such children enter mainstream schooling without adequate support is disadvantageous for many of them and will echo throughout their lives.
However, school readiness is just one aspect of what causes young people to become NEETs. Where they live also has an impact, with the level of local crime a key factor, as well as parental attributes, such as parental joblessness, which can impact a young person’s future mental and physical health and likelihood of being involved in criminal behaviour themselves.
Recent announcements about a Youth Guarantee, promising every young person access to further learning, help to get a job or an apprenticeship also seem unlikely to help many young people, especially those who have already ‘vanished’ from the system and won’t take up the offer implied by the Guarantee. About a quarter of NEETs have no qualifications, reinforcing the message that these are children who never settled into education, were unable to benefit from it, or whose background gave them no hope or aspirations to work towards. As we wait for the Schools White Paper due in the New Year, with its plans for pupils with SEND, it is important to remember that such pupils are in the category of those most likely to become NEET when they leave school. That the current system of diagnosis and issuing of an EHCP (Education and Health Care Plan) committing additional support for these children has a backlog of several years in many areas in England, means they can continue to struggle over extended periods, increasing the likelihood of them falling behind and discouraging their aspirations.
There are real-life consequences of letting children fall behind, as can be seen in the prison population. Here too the link with poor educational attainment is clear. Ministry of Justice figures show that 57% of adult prisoners have literacy levels below those expected of an 11-year-old, and up to 50% of prisoners may be functionally illiterate. An astonishing 47% of the prison population have no qualifications and 13% have never had a job. Even more shocking, many prisoners leave prison having gained very few additional skills. Two-thirds of prisoners are unemployed or not in training six months after release.
Despite everything that we know about the importance of employment in helping ex-offenders to lead crime-free lives, funding for education in prison is being severely cut and the data on ‘purposeful activities’ in prison make for grim reading. This has led to strongly worded criticisms from many organisations, and not just NGOs (non-governmental organisations). The Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, Charlie Taylor, has been scathing in his response to the announced cuts, pointing out that, whilst most prisons are facing at least a 20% reduction in their education budget, some governors are expecting up to a 50% reduction, meaning many teachers and instructors are being made redundant. Prisoners are ‘just passing time’ in overcrowded, under-staffed, prisons and are not being allocated to activities which can help them acquire the skills or qualifications that they need to turn their lives around.
The short-sightedness of policies which do not support early years interventions for more disadvantaged children can be quantified. It is possible to show that financially, investment in early years – such as ensuring all children, including those of unemployed parents, have access to good nursery provision so they can enter school ‘ready’ to learn – will save money over time. A 30-hour per week provision of free nursery for three to four year olds costs £7,500 per annum per child, but a year in prison costs around £50,000. The educational provision that those in prison need to avoid subsequent reoffending only pushes the cost up. Failing to support the most disadvantaged children is not only morally wrong; it is also a false economy for the government. But, as with many cases, the money to solve these problems comes from different departmental budgets. Mission-led government should be about providing an opportunity to break out of these silos and take a more holistic approach.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.
