The Best Start in Life strategy and what it means for the sector

A critical lens on the Best Start in Life strategy

The Best Start in Life Strategy is positioned as a cross-departmental plan; integrating health, education, and social care through the development of local Best Start services and family hubs. While the strategy is a welcome acknowledgement of the importance of early childhood, a closer look—particularly from the perspective of educators and providers—reveals substantial gaps in policy, funding, and practical implementation.

Revisiting past strengths: Echoes of Sure Start

Many in the early childhood community have recognised parallels between this new strategy and the early 2000s Sure Start initiative, which sought to offer integrated support to families through children’s centres. The inclusion of family hubs in the new strategy reflects a desire to recapture this holistic, community-based approach. However, unlike their predecessors, these new hubs will not provide childcare and will only be established in areas of disadvantage. While this makes strategic sense within limited budgets, it raises equity concerns—children with additional needs or facing challenges exist in all communities, not only those deemed deprived.

A fragmented approach lacking accountability

The strategy brings together a range of existing policies and programmes, such as the expansion of funded childcare hours and the scaling of Strong Practice Hubs. However, this amalgamation has been described as a “mishmash” by sector experts. Several initiatives were already in motion before the strategy’s publication, and while their consolidation is welcome, the lack of clear accountability and timelines is problematic. Commitments to ‘consult with the sector’ on key issues like funding risk being performative rather than transformative—especially in a profession that frequently reports being unheard by policymakers.

Funding: Intentions versus impact

The extension of funded hours to children from nine months has been celebrated by many families, but concerns remain about how this funding is distributed and managed. One of the strategy’s more controversial elements is the encouragement of a ‘menu of optional extras’—meals, snacks, and activities that families can choose (and pay) to include. This approach risks creating a two-tier system, where only those who can afford to pay receive the full experience of early education.

This model has practical flaws. Providers must maintain staffing, kitchens, and spaces regardless of how many children opt in. Beyond logistics, it undermines inclusion and shared experiences—mealtimes, for instance, are rich opportunities for social and emotional development. Fragmenting such experiences could damage the social capital of early years settings and deepen inequality.

The workforce crisis: Qualifications, incentives, and retention

The strategy gestures toward workforce development, including proposals for early years teachers in every setting and incentives for working in disadvantaged areas. However, as many have noted, aspiration without infrastructure is insufficient. Questions remain about how settings will fund such roles, how qualified professionals will be retained, and whether training pipelines can meet demand.

The new Level 6 apprenticeship has potential, but high off-the-job hours are likely to discourage take-up. Furthermore, the experience-based qualification route for long-serving unqualified staff raises concerns about diluting quality. Instead of lowering the bar, many argue for a renewed investment in professionalisation, including bringing back initiatives like the Graduate Leader Fund or quality premiums.

Inclusion, accessibility, and the limits of universality

There are promising indications that inclusion will be more deeply embedded in training and inspection, with Ofsted placing greater emphasis on equitable practice. However, inclusive provision requires resourcing. Currently, the burden of supporting children with additional needs—including attending multi-agency meetings and providing 1:1 support—is falling on providers, often without funding. Without substantial and sustained investment, inclusion risks remaining an aspiration rather than a reality.

Social enterprises: A quiet but critical presence

Encouragingly, the strategy mentions social enterprises for the first time—an acknowledgement of their growing role in delivering value-driven early childhood services. With profits reinvested into staff, training, and quality improvement, these organisations are often better positioned to balance affordability with high standards. The emergence of collectives such as the Early Years Social Enterprise Collective reflects this momentum and offers an alternative model to private equity-backed provision.

School readiness: Redefining expectations

The strategy references school readiness, often tied to targets for phonics and numeracy by the end of the reception year. Yet a critical reflection is needed: what do we actually mean by ‘school readiness’? Many in the profession argue that emotional regulation, social confidence, executive functioning, and independence are far more foundational than early literacy.

Educators emphasise the importance of nurturing children’s wellbeing, confidence, and ability to engage with the world—not merely their capacity to sit still or hold a pencil. A holistic, play-based approach prepares children not just for school, but for life.

Final reflections

While The Best Start in Life Strategy is a welcome signal that early childhood is back on the policy agenda, it falls short of delivering the depth and clarity that the profession urgently needs. Without meaningful engagement, sustainable funding, and a coherent workforce development plan, the strategy risks being another well-intentioned document that fails to create lasting change.

The early childhood community continues to show commitment, creativity, and resilience. But it cannot—and should not—be expected to plug the gaps left by policy alone.