Restricting 30-hour offer to workers could widen gap on disadvantage, says expert

Co-author of the Effective Pre-School, Primary & Secondary Education (EPPSE) study, which followed 3,000 children from age three to 16, Professor Iram Siraj told Nursery World that denying the extra hours to children who live in families where parents do not work could lead to widening the gap for disadvantaged children.

'There would be an outrage if it was a school; why is it in early years that we can get away with that? Suddenly you're saying that some children will have a right to have twice as much as other children? It's illogical.'

Professor Siraj is a member of the research team of the EPPSE 3-16+ project. The longitudinal study ran from 1997 to 2014 and its evidence is often used by ministers to highlight the value of early education.

The study reveals the developmental advantages for children attending pre-school for longer duration. 'We know that pre-school quality and duration matters,' she said. 'I suspect that for disadvantaged children, if they were doing 30 hours it would have an impact.'

Children also benefit more if hours are spread over several days during the week.

A report summarising EPPSE's findings has just been published.

Pre-school was shown to have a positive and long-term impact on children's attainment, progress and social-behavioural development. At the age of five, attending pre-school improved children's academic and social outcomes, with children starting before the age of three and attending a high-quality setting being particularly beneficial.

Researchers were able to show the impact of quality, particularly for maths outcomes, boys, disadvantage, special educational needs and children of parents with low qualification levels. High-quality pre-schools also reduced the risk of anti-social behaviours.

Professor Siraj said, 'Quality really does seem to matter for disadvantaged children. Poverty for this Government is defined by material wealth. No one is paying attention to social and cultural capital.'

Pre-school continued to influence how well children did throughout primary and secondary school. At 11, it was 'especially important' for boys, pupils with special educational needs, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. High-quality pre-school enhanced the maths outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and for those with low-qualified parents.

Moreover, an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies projected the future earnings of individuals who had attended pre-school as £27,000 more over the course of their working lives than children who had little or no pre-school experience.

The authors conclude that it 'makes a persuasive argument that early investment can pay long-term dividends. While the strength of the influence of pre-school changed as the EPPSE children turned into teenagers, having positive early learning experiences continued to shape these young people's lives beyond compulsory education.'