There have been significant shifts in the shape of early education and care (ECEC) since the previous government’s 2023 budget announced an expansion of funded childcare for working parents. Since autumn 2025, those with babies and pre-schoolers aged nine-months and over are entitled to funding equivalent to 30 hours per week, 38 weeks per year. This expanded entitlement is estimated to have resulted in the roll out of at least 85,000 new ECEC places.[1]
The rapid increase has relied almost entirely on nurseries in the private sector – many of which are part of large chains.[2] While a relatively small number of school-based nurseries have been opened, even among these settings, some are privately-run providers located on school premises.[3] The number of childminders continues to decline steeply, with 1000 fewer registered in 2025 compared to 2024.[4] Voluntary sector pre-schools have also been closing for some time.[5]
Recent policy focus has almost entirely been on increasing quantity. But what of quality? And what does the reliance on private sector settings mean for children’s experiences in their earliest years?
Lower quality in the private sector
Statistics released today as part of the Department for Education’s Childcare and Early Years Provider Survey do not, for the first time, disaggregate the number of children attending ECEC in private as opposed to voluntary sector group-based settings – though they show a rise in ‘booked places’ at group-based settings overall. As statistics from 2019 to 2024 showed consistently that a growing majority of children attend in the private sector, it is highly likely that this year’s rise has also taken place in private settings. [6] Today’s release shows that 43% of private settings are part of a chain.
They also show that on average, private group-based providers of ECEC are more likely to offer lower quality experiences to children. These providers are more likely to:
- Have high staff turnover (16% as compared to 6% in maintained nursery schools)
- Employ lower-qualified staff compared to maintained settings (11% with a level 6 compared to 41% in school-based providers)
- Employ younger staff, who may be less experienced (26% under 25s compared to 7% in maintained nursery schools and 1% among childminders)
Staff, and their relationships with the children they educate and care for, are a crucial feature of the quality of an early years setting. This means that expansion of places into private settings, which typically have higher rates of turnover and lower rates of degree-level qualified staff, is worrying.
Profit before quality?
It is also worth noting that a key function of large private chain-based providers is to generate profit for their shareholders. Despite on average employing fewer degree-level staff, today’s statistics show that, ‘private group-based providers charged parents the highest average fees,’ and ‘private group-based providers [are] the most likely to have increased fees in the past 12 months.’ This raises concerns about efficiency in channelling limited public funds, as well as whether the priorities of shareholders are aligned with public policy priorities when considering quality against profit.
Statements from some of the private equity groups who continue to acquire nurseries across England endorse, for example, ‘regulatory changes aimed at supporting nursery operations, affordability and availability of staff.’[7] These changes include a recent revision to statutory ratios that means more children per staff member. These changes were implemented despite widespread objections and warnings about the impact on quality (which were consistent ‘across all of the different types of respondents’ to a government consultation).[8]
A recent ‘market view’ article from a nursery brokerage firm also highlights how allowing more children per adult is helpful for profit: ‘Let’s be honest – staffing will always be your biggest cost. But…those who have…refined room ratios…are holding those costs steady.’[9] Elsewhere, private equity firms discuss ‘acquiring nurseries in affluent catchment areas which offer the potential for significant value creation.’[10]
None of this speaks to quality or to children’s experiences. It speaks of keeping costs down, and returns for investors.
A space to be watched with concern
So today’s statistics from the Department for Education are disquieting for a number of reasons. They highlight issues with the continued reliance on private providers for early education and care and they reiterate indications that quality, on average, is lower in this part of the sector. These statistics continue to raise questions about whether this reshaping of provision is desirable: both in terms of public spending, and in terms of the experiences of children in their earliest years.
