The Guardian view on nurseries: some things are going right for under-fives

‘It is heartening that England’s five-year‑olds were found to be thriving.’ Photograph: Stuart Boulton/AlamyView image in fullscreen‘It is heartening that England’s five-year‑olds were found to be thriving.’ Photograph: Stuart Boulton/AlamyThe Guardian view on nurseries: some things are going right for under-fivesEditorialEngland’s strong results in an early learning study are a Sure Start legacy that ministers must build on

Recognition of the importance of babyhood and early childhood continues to grow. It is widely understood by many ordinary people, as well as experts, that what happens to us when we are very small, and our brains are at their most malleable, has lasting effects. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) put it in a study of early years education, “the first five years of a child’s life represent a window of opportunity, but also of vulnerability”.

New Labour’s grasp of this underpinned its pioneering Sure Start programme. Much of this was dismantled under the Tory-Liberal Democrat austerity programme. But despite that loss, England’s results in this year’s OECD Early Learning and Child Well‑being Study were strong. This study does not have the high profile of the programme for international student assessment (Pisa) comparing the academic performance of 15-year-olds. It is newer and relies on a far smaller sample size. But while its findings should not be treated as gospel, it is heartening that England’s five-year‑olds were found to be thriving. On a social-emotional development measure, they came out on top.

Concerns about school readiness, with a rising number of children in England arriving in reception classes without basic skills such as climbing stairs, must continue to be taken seriously. So must the attainment gap between economically disadvantaged children and those from wealthier backgrounds. The recent announcement by the health secretary, Yvette Cooper, that the Healthy Babies programme will be extended to more family hubs should be warmly welcomed as one means of tackling these problems.

But as well as addressing the inequalities that restrict children’s chances, ministers should focus on the early years sector’s strengths – which are a legacy of Sure Start and all the investment that went in. While less often discussed than the national curriculum, England’s early years framework is admired internationally.

Early years funding has expanded massively, with eligible working parents entitled to 30 hours’ childcare weekly for children from nine months until school age. The Tories now propose removing the £100,000 earnings ceiling: a £700m policy that rewards richer families. The model sees public money follows working parental demand rather than building universal provision. Families without working parents remain less well supported, while private providers gravitate towards wealthier areas, where extra hours and charges are more affordable.

The Competition and Markets Authority found that private providers were making excess profits in the children’s social care market. A study into their role as childcare providers requested by the former education secretary Bridget Phillipson should establish whether something similar is going on in nurseries, and assist ministers in finding ways to target low-income areas. Alan Milburn’s review of young people and work is expected to highlight the role of early years in getting toddlers on track for school.

The OECD was right to acknowledge the vulnerability, as well as the potential, of the youngest children. The horrific abuse of toddlers by Vincent Chan at a nursery in London was a grim reminder of what can go wrong. Safeguarding must continue to be strengthened; the switch to more frequent inspections by Ofsted was a good move. But as well as facing up to failures, ministers should embrace past successes – and work out how they can be built on.