Exposed: The Death of Private Nurseries

Introduction – A Deceptive Crisis in Childcare?

Is the government lying to you about childcare? It sure feels that way. We’re a group of passionate childcare providers, and we’ve had enough. After years of dedication to caring for children, we’re seeing our nurseries pushed to the brink – then blamed for it. Politicians boast about “saving” parents money and the media screams about nursery “dangers,” but behind the headlines lies a story of government deception and neglect. Today, we’re speaking out – with concern, with disappointment, but also with unity and determination. (Stay with us – what we’re about to reveal will shock you, but it’s a story every parent and provider needs to hear.) 🤨

Hooked? You should be. Because while ministers promise the world to parents, government funding is failing nurseries – and they’re covering it up with misleading claims. In this video, we’ll expose how recent reports have twisted facts to paint our sector as unsafe and inferior, how the government is unfairly favoring school-based nurseries while starving others, and why we – the private and community nurseries, childminders, and early years educators – must stand together. This is our story, and it’s time to set the record straight… (Let’s dive in.)

Misleading Media Reports: The Truth Behind “Serious Incidents”

You may have seen the alarming headlines: “40% rise in serious childcare incidents at nurseries!” Netmums ran this story, and the BBC amplified it, startling parents everywhere. They claimed that over the past five years, there have been almost 20,000 reports of serious incidents in nurseries – roughly *75 “significant events” every week (Ground News)】. It sounds terrifying, as if our nurseries have suddenly become dangerous places. But this is incredibly misleading, and here’s why.

What they didn’t tell you is that Ofsted (the regulator) quietly changed its reporting requirements. Now, nurseries must report every “significant event” as a serious incident, even if it’s not actually serious. 🧐 In practice, this means we have to log all kinds of things that previously wouldn’t have been counted as “incidents” at all. For example, if there’s a minor change at our setting – say a new manager coming on board, a temporary closure due to a burst pipe, or even certain staff health updates – we’re required to notify Ofsted as a “significant even ( Childcare: significant events to notify Ofsted about – GOV.UK )2】. No harm to a child is needed for it to count.

Imagine suddenly deciding that every scraped knee or policy update must be recorded as a “serious incident.” Of course the numbers would shoot up! And that’s exactly what happened. The 40% rise wasn’t because nurseries got more dangerous overnight – it’s because the goalposts for reporting moved. We’re simply following stricter rules, logging things that would never have been logged before.

Yet, the media reports made it sound like children are in peril like never before. 😟 That’s not just unfair – it’s wrong. The vast majority of those “incidents” are bureaucratic in nature or extremely minor. We reported them out of an abundance of caution and compliance, not because children were being harmed. In fact, genuine cases of serious harm or neglect remain exceedingly rare.

Don’t just take our word for it. Nearly all nurseries are safe and high-quality. Even The Guardian noted that 97% of nurseries in England were rated good or outstanding under Ofsted’s previous framew (The Guardian view on early years education: new nurseries must be the start of something bigger | Editorial | The Guardian)L4】. *Ninety-seven percen (The Guardian view on early years education: new nurseries must be the start of something bigger | Editorial | The Guardian)L4】 That means almost every nursery – whether private, voluntary, or school-based – is meeting high standards. Nearly all are safe. Many are excellent. So why is the media suddenly suggesting otherwise? 🤔

It’s hard not to feel that this scare was manufactured – a convenient excuse to tighten the screws on private nurseries or justify new policies. But we won’t let fear-mongering go unchallenged. Our message to parents: Don’t be misled by skewed statistics. Your child’s nursery is overwhelmingly likely to be safe, caring, and professional, as it always has been.

Quick Reality Check: The “serious incidents” spike is a data illusion. It reflects paperwork changes, not an actual surge in kids getting hurt. Our commitment to children’s safety hasn’t changed – what changed is how Ofsted counts and labels incidents. We’re as vigilant as ever in protecting and educating your little ones. 💖

Short-Notice Inspections and “Fake” Prep – A Double Standard

As if the trumped-up incident reports weren’t enough, the BBC recently aired an investigation implying that nurseries might be “faking” their Ofsted inspections. Yes, you heard that right – they suggested that because Ofsted now sometimes gives us a bit of notice before an inspection (instead of just bursting through the door unannounced), nurseries are somehow able to cheat. According to this report, some nurseries might bring in extra staff for the day or set up “fake” activities just to impress inspe (BBC investigation into safety of nurseries claims children are in …)1-L3】. The insinuation? That we’re dishonest and only look good when we know we’re being watched. 😠

Let’s unpack that. First off, Ofsted introduced short-notice inspections during the COVID era for practical reasons – to ensure someone is on site, to check about any outbreaks, etc. We might get a call the afternoon before or early that morning saying an inspector will come. That’s usually it. A few hours’ notice, maybe overnight. The idea that we can magically overhaul our entire operation in that time is frankly absurd. We can’t conjure fully trained staff out of thin air or turn an inadequate setting into an outstanding one overnight. Our day-to-day practices have to be solid, notice or not, because you cannot fake an entire nursery’s quality.

Second, and here’s the kicker: Schools get even more notice for inspections, and nobody seems to bat an eyelid about that! When a primary or secondary school is due an Ofsted visit, they typically receive a call the day before. Sometimes they even have a couple of days to prepare. Yet you don’t see BBC reporters accusing schools of staging fake lessons or hiding misbehavior. 🤨 Why the double standard? If a nursery getting a morning’s notice is “gaming the system,” what do we call it when a school gets a full day?

And it’s not just about notice. Many school-based nurseries haven’t been inspected in years. Did the BBC mention that? Ofsted had a policy (now ended) that if a school was rated “Outstanding,” it was exempt from routine re-inspection for years. Some schools went 10+ years without inspection – indeed, when Ofsted finally revisited those schools, a lot of them had slipped in standards. Meanwhile, nurseries (especially private ones) have faced frequent scrutiny. So if there was any opportunity to “hide” problems, school settings had the far bigger window, not us.

The BBC piece focused on one nursery where a tragic incident occurred (and our hearts break for that child’s family), and then tried to generalize that “thousands of children are being harmed” and nurseries can manipulate inspections. This broad brush painting is not only unfair – it’s unsupported by evidence. Remember: Ofsted inspects all early years providers by the same standards. If giving notice truly let everyone fake it, then school inspections would be a farce too – and we know that’s not t (How has a school escaped ofsted for 10 years? | Mumsnet)25-L31】. The vast majority of providers, school or private, work hard every day to meet standards, and an inspection is just a formal check of what we do continually.

So to the media, we say: enough with the bias. If you’re going to question the integrity of nursery inspections, hold everyone to account equally. Don’t single out private nurseries and imply we need some kind of surprise ambush to show our “true colors.” Our true colors are on display every single day – in how we care for children, communicate with parents, and uphold the Early Years Foundation Stage. We have nothing to hide.

In fact, many of us welcome short-notice or even unannounced inspections! We’re confident in what we do. We don’t need weeks to prepare fancy window-dressing. Our quality isn’t an act – it’s real. Can the government say the same about its portrayal of us? 🤔

School Nursery vs Private Nursery: The Real Issue Is Quality

Now, let’s address the elephant in the room – the government’s push to expand school-based nurseries at the expense of private, voluntary, and independent (PVI) nurseries. Ministers have been busy promoting nurseries in primary schools as if they’re the superior option. The narrative goes something like: “If we open more nursery classes in schools, we can eventually replace those expensive private nurseries, save parents money, and ensure higher quality.” They make it sound like school = good, private = bad when it comes to early years.

But is there any truth to that? Spoiler: No. It’s a false narrative unsupported by research or reality.

Decades of research – from the EPPSE project (Effective Pre-school and Primary Education) to studies by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Nuffield Foundation, and many universities – have shown one consistent finding: what matters for children’s outcomes is the quality of early education, not the type of setting. It’s about what happens in the classroom or playroom, not whether that room is in a school building or a private daycare center.

Let’s break down a few findings:

• High-quality early education benefits children for the long term. The EPPSE study found that children who attended high-quality pre-school entered school with better social and cognitive skills, and these benefits could still be measured in the (The economic effects of pre-school education and quality | Institute for Fiscal Studies)25-L333】. Crucially, EPPSE looked at all kinds of settings – state nursery schools, nursery classes, playgroups, private nurseries – and identified quality teaching and interactions as the key factors. In other words, a great nursery is great regardless of who runs it.
• Quality, not the label on the door, drives success. The Institute for Fiscal Studies analyzed the impact of different pre-school experiences and found no evidence that attending a school-based nursery yields any special advantage over a good PVI nursery once you account for (based nurseries are the best option is misleading and not supported …)L14-L18】. If anything, their work (and others’) suggests that the differences within each sector are bigger than the differences between sectors. There are fantastic private nurseries and fantastic school nurseries – and there are some weak ones in each as well.
• Teacher qualifications and Ofsted ratings don’t automatically guarantee better outcomes. Surprising, right? A Nuffield-funded study matched 1.6 million children’s early outcomes with the type of nursery they attended. It found that **children who went to an Ofsted ‘Outstanding’-rated nursery did only marginally better by age 5 than those who went to a ‘Good’ n (New evidence of the impact of quality nurseries on children’s outcomes)95-L104】. Having a teacher with a degree in the nursery had, at most, a tiny effect on children’s early learnin (New evidence of the impact of quality nurseries on children’s outcomes)95-L104】. In fact, the researchers concluded that current measures of quality (like ratings or having a teacher present) **“are not able to explain much of the variation in children’s out (New evidence of the impact of quality nurseries on children’s outcomes)99-L107】. Translation: an outstanding school nursery and a good private nursery both help children – and the difference in child outcomes between them was negligible. 📊

So, the government’s implication that school-based nurseries are inherently better is not supported by evidence. Quality early education is what’s crucial – and quality can be achieved in any setting with the right training, ratios, leadership and curriculum. Conversely, poor quality can occur anywhere if those elements aren’t in place. We’ve seen wonderful practice in private nurseries and childminders’ homes, and conversely, there have been cases of inadequate practice even in school nurseries. (Remember, the tragic incident the BBC focused on happened in a private nursery, but there have been serious failings in maintained settings too – no sector has a monopoly on perfection.)

It’s also worth noting that all Ofsted-registered early years providers follow the same EYFS (Early Years Foundation Stage) framework and standards. Whether we’re a nursery attached to a school or an independent one on the high street, we all must meet identical requirements for safety, staff qualifications/ratios, and learning and development. We all undergo inspections under the same criteria. There’s no separate, stricter rulebook for PVIs and a lenient one for schools – it’s one rulebook for all. 📚 So when the government suggests that moving childcare into schools will magically improve quality, it’s baffling. We’re already doing everything schools do, by law. The framework is literally the same.

Let’s put to bed the myth that a school-based nursery is automatically “better” for a child. Study after study confirms that what benefits children is:

• a warm, stimulating environment,
• skilled and responsive caregivers/teachers,
• a rich variety of play and learning activities,
• and consistent, secure relationships.

None of those are exclusive to school settings. Our private nurseries and childminders excel in these areas every day. Many of us have staff with degrees or Early Years Teacher Status; many of us innovate with forest school sessions, sensory rooms, or language-rich curricula. And guess what? Ofsted agrees – as we said, 97% of all nurseries (across sectors) are good or o (The Guardian view on early years education: new nurseries must be the start of something bigger | Editorial | The Guardian). That includes thousands of private nurseries that are knocking it out of the park.

So parents, when you hear a minister insinuate that you should trust a school nursery more than the local community nursery, remember: they’re selling a narrative, not citing facts. Your child will thrive in any setting that is loving, safe, and enriching. Those qualities are found in both the maintained (school) sector and the PVI sector. The government should be supporting quality everywhere, not picking favorites based on ideology or cost.

Rebranding Our Losses as Their “Wins”

Now, let’s talk about something that frankly makes our blood boil: the government’s hypocrisy in handling nursery closures and new openings.

Across the country, PVI nurseries are shutting down. You might have seen it in your own community – that longstanding daycare down the road that suddenly announced it couldn’t afford to go on, or the childminder who reluctantly closed her business. This is happening because government funding for nursery places has been chronically inadequate. For years, the “free childcare” hours scheme underpaid providers; we often got far less from the government per child than the cost of delivering the place, leaving us to somehow make up the shortfall or operate on a shoestring. Add in rising wages, energy bills, food costs – and many nurseries simply couldn’t survive. The result? Hundreds of private nurseries and pre-schools have closed in recent years (and thousands of childminders left the sector). Each closure is heartbreaking: staff lose jobs, children are uprooted, parents are left scrambling.

So what does the government do about this crisis they helped create? Do they increase funding so nurseries can stay open? Do they acknowledge the closures? Not exactly. Instead, they have a cunning way to spin the story. They take some of the money (far less than what they’d need to save all those nurseries) and use it to open nursery classes in schools instead. Then they announce, tada!, 300 new nurseries opening in schools! They frame it as a “massive boost” to early education, a fulfillment of their promises. And when a school-based nursery opens in an area where, say, a private nursery closed last year, they cut the ribbon and treat it like a brand new win for parents.

It’s infuriating. They are literally rebranding our losses as their victories. They let independent nurseries fail, then pump money into the very same communities through schools and claim credit for “expanding childcare.” It’s like if a town’s only bakery closed due to some policy decision, and then the government opened a bakery in the supermarket and said, “Look, new bakery for you!” The community isn’t net better off – it’s often just getting back what it lost, in a different wrapper.

And the cruel irony? They claim these new school nurseries will “save parents money.” Officials tout that parents could save thousands on childcare by using these school-based places. But think about it: parents weren’t spending that money for fun – they were paying it to private nurseries because that was the only way to cover the real costs of quality care. If the government had properly funded those places to begin with, parents wouldn’t have had such high fees! By underfunding us until we broke, then shifting provision to schools (which get direct funding and can cross-subsidize with education budgets), they create an illusion that school nurseries are “cheaper.” In reality, someone always pays – either through taxes or fees. The government finally putting more money into early years (via schools) is an admission that yes, childcare is expensive to provide. We knew that all along; we were just expected to absorb the cost or charge parents. Now they swoop in and act like heroes for footing some of the bill – after driving many nurseries out of business. 😤

We’ve even heard of cases where a PVI nursery closes and soon after a local school gets a grant to start a nursery class to serve the same families. Parents are told “Great news, you’ll have a free place at the school nursery now.” But nothing is truly free – the difference is, at the private nursery the cost was partly covered by parent fees (because government funding didn’t cover it), and at the school, the cost is covered by that government grant or education budget. It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul, with a PR twist.

Let’s call this what it is: hypocrisy and spin. The government failed to support nurseries adequately, watched dozens close, and is now effectively nationalising those places by pushing them into schools – then expecting applause for it. Meanwhile, the dedicated entrepreneurs and childcare professionals who built those now-closed nurseries are left devastated, their livelihoods gone, their service to the community erased from the narrative.

We speak out not to knock school nurseries – they have a role – but to highlight the injustice of celebrating “new” places that are in many cases simply replacements. It’s like patting yourself on the back for rebuilding one house while a whole street is on fire due to your negligence.

The Problem with Relying Only on School Nurseries

Let’s dig into another aspect the government glosses over: school-based nurseries are not a like-for-like replacement for what’s being lost. There are limitations and trade-offs when you move childcare primarily onto school sites, and these matter a lot to parents and children.

1. Term-time only care: Most school-run nurseries operate on a school calendar. That means they’re open roughly 38 weeks a year, Monday to Friday, typically 9am to 3pm (or similar school hours). Come school holidays – Christmas, Easter, and the long summer break – they close. Now, imagine you’re a working parent. You don’t get 13 weeks of holiday break from your job. So what do you do in the weeks when the school nursery is shut? You scramble – maybe relatives help, maybe you patch together holiday clubs (if any will take under-5s), or you take unpaid leave. It’s a huge headache and expense. Private nurseries, on the other hand, usually operate year-round, closing only for a few days at Christmas or bank holidays. They provide continuity of care for 48-50 weeks a year. That consistency is a lifeline for working families. When a private nursery is replaced by a term-time school nursery, parents lose that reliable year-round option. This is often glossed over in government announcements.
2. Shorter hours and less flexibility: School nurseries typically mirror school hours. Some might offer wraparound care if the school runs breakfast or after-school clubs that extend to nursery-aged kids, but many do not for toddlers. A standard day might be 9–3 or even just a morning or afternoon session for 3 hours. Private nurseries often open from 7:30am to 6pm, covering a full working day. They allow parents to drop off early and pick up late, often with options for part-time or extended hours. That flexibility is critical. Without it, two working parents might find a school nursery day too short to cover their work schedule. They’ll need childminders or relatives to bridge gaps, adding complexity. Government rarely mentions this issue of hours – they talk about “places” as if each place is equal. But a place that covers 30 hours a week for 38 weeks a year is not the same as one that can cover 50 hours a week for 50 weeks. Parents know the difference.
3. Limited ages served: Most school nurseries focus on 3 and 4-year-olds (the year or two before Reception). Some are starting to take 2-year-olds (especially if there’s funding for disadvantaged 2s) and an even smaller number might take babies (under 2) if they set up a separate provision – but it’s not common. Meanwhile, PVIs often take children from 6 months or 1 year old all the way up to school age. That means a child can start as an infant in a loving nursery environment and stay until they transition to primary school at 4. The benefits of that continuity are huge: the child is deeply comfortable, the educators know the child’s history, and parents build long-term trust with one provider. If a baby’s nursery closes and later a school nursery opens, that baby has nowhere to go until they’re at least 2 or 3. The family has to find alternative care (often another private nursery farther away, or a childminder – if they can even find one, given the shortages). The school nursery “solution” doesn’t solve the problem for under-3s at all. This is especially concerning with the government promising childcare for younger ages – who’s going to care for the 1 and 2-year-olds? They’re leaning on PVIs and childminders for that, ironically.
4. Partnership (or lack thereof) with other providers: In a mixed childcare market, parents sometimes use a combination of providers – for instance, a child might attend a school nursery in the morning and then go to a private nursery or childminder in the afternoon for wraparound care. Or a family might use a school nursery during term and a private camp in summer. These arrangements require coordination. Many PVIs and childminders have happily partnered up with schools to make such transitions smooth (we truly are all in this for the kids’ best interest). But not every school is open to partnership or has something to offer beyond the core hours. Some school nurseries might say, “we don’t allow split placements” (where the free 30 hours, for example, are split between a school and another setting) – forcing parents to choose one or the other. Others might simply not have the capacity to extend hours. The result can be disjointed care for the child and inconvenience for parents.

So when the government crows about opening new nursery places in schools and how it will help parents, we have to shine a light on these real-world drawbacks. A place in a school nursery might be great for some families (especially if you have older kids at the same school, it’s convenient for drop-off/pick-up on the same site). But for many working families, a term-time, school-hours place only covers a fraction of their childcare needs. Without PVIs, playgroups, and childminders to fill the gaps, parents could actually find themselves worse off – juggling more arrangements, dealing with more disruption, and panicking during school holidays.

And let’s not forget: quality and individual attention can suffer if a one-size-fits-all approach is taken. PVIs come in all shapes and sizes – small homely nurseries, forest schools, Montessori nurseries, etc. Parents have a choice of ethos and environment. If everything is funneled into school nurseries, that diversity diminishes. Some children thrive in a smaller setting or under the care of a consistent childminder rather than in a larger school class. We need multiple options to meet different needs.

The bottom line: school nurseries are a piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture. They work best in partnership with the broader childcare sector, not as a replacement for it. By sidelining PVIs, the government risks breaking the system that parents rely on. And ironically, many school nurseries themselves value and rely on relationships with PVIs (for example, to take younger siblings, or to provide wraparound care). We’re all interconnected in this ecosystem.

Billions Promised, Crumbs Delivered (Where Are the Places?)

Let’s talk numbers, because the mismatch between the government’s promises and the reality is stark. Ministers have announced what they call “the largest ever investment in childcare” – figures in the billions of pounds. They also keep referencing a manifesto pledge to create thousands of new nursery places in schools. It sounds impressive when delivered at a press conference. But when you look at what’s actually happening on the ground… the picture is far less rosy.

Here are some hard facts:

• The Department for Education recently put out a press release celebrating the approval of 300 new or expanded nurseries in schools, funded by a special ca (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard) (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard)36†L51-L59】. They hyped this as a “massive boost” and evidence they’re delivering on promises.
• The funding for this first phase was originally £15 million, but they “more than doubled” it to £37 million to fund all 3 (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard)36†L57-L60】. So £37m spent on these school nurseries.
• How many places will this create? According to the DfE’s own figures, those 300 school-based nurseries will offer about 20 places each on average, totaling up to **6,000 n (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard)36†L51-L59】. However, not all will be ready immediately – they expect **up to 4,000 places to be available by this Septe (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard)36†L51-L59】, with the rest coming later.
• Now, compare that to the demand. Why are they creating these places? Because the government has promised a huge expansion of free childcare hours to younger ages. To make that possible, they estimated that 85,000 additional childcare places will be needed by next year (Sept (Expansion plans require 85,000 more childcare places by September 2025 | Childcare | The Guardian)†L161-L170】. Yes, you heard that right: 85,000 more places needed in England.
• So far, they’ve delivered roughly 4,000 of those through this schools (School-based nurseries: Everything you need to know – The Education Hub) (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard)36†L51-L59】. Even being generous with future phases, 6,000 places from the current scheme is a drop in the bucket.

Let’s do the math: 85,000 needed vs 6,000 created. That’s not even 10% of the requirement. Even if they pour more money in, can schools realistically host ten times that many new places soon? Unlikely – there are only so many spare classrooms to convert and so many teachers to go around. It’s clear that without the PVI sector, they can’t meet their own targets. Yet, they’re not investing nearly as much in helping existing nurseries survive or expand. The focus is on new places in schools – which, as we discussed, often just compensate for places lost elsewhere.

They also tout how this will save parents money – claiming, for instance, that the rollout of expanded free hours will save a working parent up to **£7,500 a yea (School-based nurseries: Everything you need to know – The Education Hub)3†L93-L100】. Again, sounds great. But that saving only materializes if there’s actually a place available for your child! And right now, there’s a huge gap between the political promise and on-the-ground capacity. Many parents are already struggling to find a nursery spot or a childminder, especially for under-2s. Without significant investment in every part of the sector (including recruiting and training thousands more staff, since an estimated 40,000 additional early years staff are needed alongside those (Expansion plans require 85,000 more childcare places by September 2025 | Childcare | The Guardian)†L169-L177】), these promises may ring hollow.

In summary:

• Government pledge: Pour billions into childcare, primarily through school nurseries, to create “thousands” of places and save parents money.
• Reality check: They boosted funding to £37m for school nurseries – resulting in about 4,000 new (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard) (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard)36†L51-L59】. Meanwhile, over 80,000 more places are needed to meet the upco (Expansion plans require 85,000 more childcare places by September 2025 | Childcare | The Guardian)†L161-L170】, and many existing providers are shutting down due to underfunding. At the current pace, the capacity simply won’t be there.

It’s like trying to fill a bathtub with a thimble of water. Or claiming you’re solving a housing crisis by building one new apartment block while a whole neighborhood is being demolished. The scale is way off. And the timeframe is urgent – parents will be eligible for these new free hours in a matter of months, but where will they actually use them if providers don’t exist?

We want parents and the public to understand this context. When these policies don’t immediately deliver the relief promised, the blame might again be shifted to providers (“oh, nurseries aren’t expanding fast enough” or “the sector isn’t stepping up”). In truth, we’re eager to serve families, but we need support, funding, and fair treatment to do so. The government can’t starve us, then expect miracles.

So, to the policymakers, we say: don’t just throw money at shiny new projects – invest in saving and strengthening the nurseries and childminders that already exist and have decades of expertise. And to our fellow providers: don’t be discouraged by the imbalance. We see through the spin, and we will keep advocating for the support we need to keep our doors open for children.

We’ve Seen This All Before – Remember Sure Start?

If you’re feeling a sense of déjà vu listening to all this, you’re not alone. We’ve been here before in a way. The tactics might be new, but the strategy of sidelining existing providers in favor of a government-led initiative has a precedent: Sure Start.

Let’s rewind to the late 1990s and 2000s. The government (at that time, the Labour government) launched Sure Start Children’s Centres with great fanfare. The idea was to have state-run centers in every community offering integrated early education, childcare, health services, parenting support – a one-stop-shop for families with young children. It was ambitious and in many ways admirable. And don’t get us wrong, Sure Start did some wonderful work in its heyday, especially in disadvantaged areas. Maintained nursery schools and children’s centres often provided excellent care and had well-qualified staff – just like many do today.

But then, a decade later, the winds changed. A new government came in (the Coalition in 2010) and austerity hit. Suddenly, those Sure Start centres were on the chopping block. Funding was slashed dramatically. Within just a few years, **hundreds of Sure Start cente (Hundreds of Sure Start centres have closed since election, says Labour | Children | The Guardian)†L159-L167】. By 2013, reports showed over 400 centres had shut down in the first couple of ye (Hundreds of Sure Start centres have closed since election, says Labour | Children | The Guardian)†L159-L167】, and many others were hollowed out (open in name, but no longer providing childcare or only serving a reduced role). Communities who had grown to rely on those services were left high and dry.

And guess who had to fill the void? Private and voluntary providers – us. Families still needed care and preschool education. So they turned (or returned) to local nurseries, playgroups, and childminders. The government – which had once touted Sure Start as the future and implicitly questioned the role of private nurseries – was now depending on the PVI sector to absorb the demand. They introduced funded hours for 2, 3, 4-year-olds and relied on nurseries and childminders to deliver them, because many children’s centres were gone or had no capacity.

In essence, after that grand experiment, the government came full circle. They had to acknowledge the vital importance of the private and voluntary sector. Ministers went from championing state-led provision to praising private nurseries as the “backbone” of childcare. I distinctly recall around 2015-2017, various education ministers and even the Prime Minister highlighting how many childcare places are provided by private businesses and charities, and thanking them for their role. The pendulum swung back, because reality struck: without us, there simply wasn’t enough provision.

Now, why bring up Sure Start? Because today’s scenario is eerily familiar. The government is again pouring money into a state-led approach (this time via schools rather than standalone children’s centres), and some in power are again casting doubt on the PVI sector. They might not be explicitly saying “we want to replace private nurseries” – but by focusing funding and political capital on school nurseries and allowing PVIs to struggle, that’s effectively the direction.

We worry that history could repeat: a few years down the line, this approach may falter (perhaps budgets will tighten, or the school system can’t handle the load alone), and then the government will once again turn back to the private sector and say “help!”. By then, will we still be there in sufficient numbers? If dozens more nurseries close in the interim, you can’t just regrow that overnight. The childcare sector isn’t a tap you can turn on and off without consequences.

Sure Start’s rise and fall teaches us a crucial lesson: sustainable childcare needs long-term support, not political grandstanding. You can’t vilify or ignore one part of the system and expect to succeed. Ultimately, after the Sure Start era, the government had to revitalize partnerships with PVIs and even re-invest in some of the very nurseries that had been overshadowed.

We have no desire to see the school nursery initiative “fail” – we care about any setting that educates children. But we do want to avoid a scenario where, after causing avoidable damage, the government has to scramble to fix it. Let’s learn from the past: a mixed economy of care – where maintained and private sectors work together, each supported to play to their strengths – is the best way to ensure access and quality for all families. We knew this in the 2010s when the vast majority of the 30-hour free entitlement was delivered by PVIs, and we know it now.

So, to policymakers: Don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. Don’t allow a divide-and-conquer mentality to ruin our sector. Support all providers fairly, and we will more than rise to the challenge of providing world-class early education and care.

And to our fellow nursery owners, managers, and childminders: remember that we’ve weathered these storms before. Sure Start came and went; we remained. Other initiatives will come and go; but the work you do day in, day out, is enduring and irreplaceable. 💪

Conclusion – Standing Together for Families and Our Future

It’s been a journey, hasn’t it? We started with scary headlines and end with lessons from history. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with a clear call to action and a message of unity and hope.

To my fellow childcare providers – the nursery owners, staff, childminders, and early years teachers: We must stick together. 🤝 The government’s campaign to favor one type of provision over another will not succeed if we present a united front. We are not each other’s enemies or competition; we are partners in giving children the best start. Let’s continue sharing our stories, supporting one another, and speaking up. When misinformation arises, we’ll correct it. When one of us is treated unfairly, we’ll rally around. Our strength is in our unity and our shared passion for children’s wellbeing.

To parents and families: we want you to know we’re on your side. We got into this profession because we care deeply about children – your children. We understand the pressures you face, juggling work and family, wanting the best care and education for your little ones. You might be feeling whiplash from constant policy announcements or worried by those media reports. But rest assured: the vast majority of people looking after your kids are dedicated, qualified, and loving professionals. We will continue to be here for you, whether we’re based in a school, a private nursery, a village hall, or a home setting. All we ask is that you join us in holding the government accountable. Demand the truth. Demand proper support for the nurseries and childminders you rely on. Your voice matters – after all, you are voters too, and politicians ultimately listen to the public mood.

To the government and media: we’re putting you on notice. We will not stand by quietly while our sector is scapegoated, undervalued, or used as a pawn in political games. We’re speaking out – as we are here – and we’ll keep doing so. We’ll highlight your successes when you get it right (because we want you to get it right!), but we’ll call out your failures when you get it wrong. We owe that to our profession and to the families we serve. So please, work with us, not against us. Help us provide the quality, affordable, continuous care that parents need, rather than undermining us and then trying to pick up the pieces later.

In closing, let’s remember why we’re in this fight: for the children. Every child in our care – be it in a shiny new school nursery or a cozy little preschool or at the home of a nurturing childminder – deserves stability, joy, learning, and love. Every parent deserves to know their child is safe and thriving, and to be able to go to work without worry. These things don’t happen by accident; they happen because of the hard work of providers and smart support from policymakers. We have the former in spades – just look at the dedication of early years staff who often go above and beyond for meager pay. It’s the latter that needs fixing.

This is our rallying cry: PVI nurseries, childminders, maintained nursery schools, school nurseries – we are all the backbone of childcare in this country, together. Let’s reject false divisions. Let’s demand the support we all need. And let’s show why parents and children need us. Because when we stand united and strong, every family wins.

Thank you for listening. Stay strong, stay informed, and let’s continue to stand up for our children’s future – together.

(If you found this informative or it resonates with you, please share it with others – parents, colleagues, even your local MP. The more people know the truth, the better chance we have to make positive change.) 💪✨

Sources:

• Ofsted data shows nearly 20,000 “significant events” were reported over five years (abou (Ground News)k) – reflecting broader reporting rules, not a sudden rise in harm.
• The Guardian confirms 97% of nurseries were rated good or outstanding under the old (The Guardian view on early years education: new nurseries must be the start of something bigger | Editorial | The Guardian)gime, attesting to widespread quality.
• BBC investigative claims of nurseries “misleading” inspectors with short (BBC investigation into safety of nurseries claims children are in …)sits ignore that schools get even longer notice and had years without inspection under old rules.
• Research (EPPSE, IFS) demonstrates high-quality early education yields lasting benefits regardl (The economic effects of pre-school education and quality | Institute for Fiscal Studies) (based nurseries are the best option is misleading and not supported …)3】, and differences between school-based and private nurseries in child outcomes are minimal when quality (New evidence of the impact of quality nurseries on children’s outcomes)t.
• Government funds of £37M for 300 school-based nurseries will create ~4,000 new place (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard) (Up to 4,000 places set to be rolled out at school-based nurseries from September | The Standard)9】 – a drop in the ocean given an estimated 85,000 extra places needed by 2025 for the ex (Expansion plans require 85,000 more childcare places by September 2025 | Childcare | The Guardian).
• Hundreds of Sure Start centres closed after 2010 due t (Hundreds of Sure Start centres have closed since election, says Labour | Children | The Guardian), showing the peril of politicizing childcare. The sector had to be rebuilt on the back of private and voluntary providers, a lesson we shouldn’t have to relearn.