Unpicking physical development: 3-part series

Pre-pandemic physical development  

We knew pre-pandemic that children’s physical development, health and wellbeing were all under significant strain.  

Here are a few quick reminders: 

Obesity –  

• 13% of 2–4-year-olds were obese 

• 16% were overweight 
• In 2020 obesity was a contributing factor to hospital admissions in 1087 children under 4 years (this was up from 336 in 2013/4) 

Oral health –  

General anaesthetics for extracting teeth due to decay were being administered in hospital to around 26000 children between 5-9 years of age each year.  

Activity levels –   

We knew that less than 10% of children under 5 years of age were experiencing the recommended level of daily physical activity and there was a marked decrease in physical activity between 6–7-year-olds, and another steep decline around 13 years of age. 

Physical skills –  

Ball skills were especially declining – in a 10-year longitudinal study (2007 – 2017) in Loughborough – aiming and catching were down 19.7 percentile points, and balance ability was down 6.2 points. 

Reference: Ofsted COVID-19 series: briefing on early years, October 2020. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted. 

Despite all this evidence, year on year 98% of young children were achieving ‘expected’ level of physical development on their Early Years Foundation Stage Profile. How does this make sense? We will go into detail on this in article 3 of this series. 

Mid-pandemic physical development 

What did we learn? We learnt how frighteningly quickly the physical and mental health of children declined. 

Many parents/carers and teachers had possibly not grasped how closely children’s mental and physical wellbeing is related, that stress and anxiety will present in a wide variety of physical conditions and behaviours, and that they simply cannot learn or function well if they are exhausted, malnourished or in pain.  

Physically what happened to children at this point? 

• Children’s average weight gain was about 7 lbs and very poor nutrition and food poverty was widespread. 
• Sleep routines were disrupted for months, and this was linked to weight gain – leptin/ghrelin – sugar cravings on wakening were noted by many parents. 
• Ocular lock was common – as daily screentime was massively extended.  
• Muscle tone and muscle mass declined due to lack of daily movement. If we consider that adults confined to bed lose 12% muscle mass per week – and we scale this down – we have some idea of the impact not moving has on children’s bodies and systems. 
• Oral health declined further, with many children not brushing their teeth often or well enough, or at all.  
• Aural skills – listening and discriminating between background and foreground sound was difficult for children living in noisy/chaotic households, where the TV or radio were often on permanently. 

Post-pandemic physical development  

Noted by parents and educators 

Of course, some children had benefited by having their parents/carers at home, extended time with siblings and access to open spaces. But for many children it was a really challenging time. 

Early childhood was not a focus for mainstream reports, so this is purely anecdotal evidence collected from a wide range of sources and settings across the country. 

Many children presented the following: 

• A general lack of physical confidence/competence – teachers said it felt like their body systems needed rebooting or refreshing – after being dormant for so long. 
• Exhaustion due to a prolonged period of poor sleep and poor nutrition 

• There was a notable regression in self-care – dummies and nappies reappeared – many children were asking to be fed and dressed again. 
• Teachers spoke of a wariness of wide-open spaces – some children stuck to the corners or margins, built very snug dens, or squeezed into small spaces to feel safe 
• They noted that many children had ‘forgotten how to play’ – we know language is supported by play, so an extended period of not rehearsing or refining interactive skills had a significant impact. 
• Core strength was really affected. Many children had resumed to sitting in highchairs, so they were not used to sitting unsupported. 
• Some who had heard little/no English found it very difficult to integrate again – English is on a very high frequency that needs tuning in to – there was a lot of whispering or shouting as they tried to find their normal speaking voices again. 

• Eyes were not used to changing from peripheral to foveal focus at speed, therefore many children found it painful and difficult to engage with books. 

Physical development catch up? 

With all of this in mind, where was the ‘catch up curriculum’ for their physical development, health and wellbeing? 

It has taken a major incident for it to become crystal clear that children need to move. That opportunities to do so are not ‘treats’ or bargaining chips for good behaviour, or ‘fun possibilities’ to be fitted in when phonics and maths permit, but a critical element of daily life that must be threaded through and embedded to ensure optimal health and wellbeing. 

No longer can we take for granted, if we ever could, that children will move enough to properly support their growing bodies and the developing systems so critical to successful and enjoyable learning.  

Next article 

Article 2 in this series looks at how available frameworks in England currently help or hinder children’s physical development: Physical development frameworks article.