½¿É«µ¼º½

What happens when a nationally mandated, play-based early years curriculum meets the realities of schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities? The (FP) offers a powerful case study of the tension between curriculum ambition and educational equity. Introduced in 2008 for three-to-seven-year-olds and, drawing on international models like in Italy and in New Zealand, the FP aimed to foster autonomy, creativity and holistic development through child-led, experiential learning. Yet, more than a decade on, evidence suggests that these ideals remain difficult to realise in areas of deprivation (Jones, 2025).

Curriculum vision vs classroom reality

The FP is grounded in constructivist theory, promoting learning through doing, with rich environments and adult-guided interactions (see Vygotsky, 1978). It is designed to support all learners – particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds (Jones, 2023). However, this vision relies on adequate staffing, resources and home support that are far from universally available.

Only around 30 per cent of survey respondents reported consistent access to well-equipped indoor and outdoor provision (such as offering a range of learning and play materials from role-play to construction and creative activities to support independent exploration). Furthermore, teachers in underresourced settings described difficulties achieving key practices like sustained shared thinking or scaffolding. Many schools struggled with high numbers of children with speech, social-emotional or behavioural needs, placing pressure on adult–child ratios. They reported that limited access to materials at home and school made it difficult to sustain child-led approaches.

While the curriculum encourages exploration and autonomy, teachers described how many children lacked familiarity with certain materials or contexts, requiring more formal support. One teacher noted: ‘Even though we believe in the Foundation Phase philosophy, we don’t feel our children are well equipped for that.’

Policy assumptions and curriculum equity

National FP funding and staffing guidelines do not reflect the greater demands in high-poverty schools. The curriculum seems to assume a baseline of cultural capital – exposure to books, collaborative play and materials – that many children lacked. In doing so, it risks placing responsibility for curriculum access on the child, rather than the system, reinforcing structural inequities. As one teacher put it:

With the area of deprivation, these kids aren’t having a huge amount of toys at home … structured play … so we spend a lot of time teaching how to play, how to take turns, how to share … and the real struggle for us has been the lack of funding for adults.

She added that the curriculum ‘works beautifully’ for more-able pupils who have experienced certain resources at home. ‘Whatever they play, they do it with more of a purpose … [but] for other children who haven’t gathered those tools yet, they can’t use them.’

Teachers often felt that children from disadvantaged backgrounds needed structured instruction before they could benefit from exploratory, child-led learning. This highlights a pedagogical paradox: those the FP most aims to support are often the least equipped to access its benefits.

Wider implications for reform

‘When curricula assume uniform levels of learner readiness and home support, they risk reinforcing the inequalities they seek to address.’

These findings echo broader curriculum research: progressive models are not inherently equitable, and without proper resourcing, children from more affluent backgrounds are often better positioned to thrive (Power et al., 2020; Schweisfurth, 2013). When curricula assume uniform levels of learner readiness and home support, they risk reinforcing the inequalities they seek to address.

As Wales extends progressive principles (such as emphasis on skills, autonomy, and cross-disciplinary learning grounded in meaningful purposes and reflection) through the new Curriculum for Wales, these challenges may intensify. Furthermore, the relaxation of national assessment requirements and roll-out of universal free school meals may make it harder to monitor and address disparities (Power et al., 2020).

Conclusion

This research highlights how progressive curricula, while well intentioned, can inadvertently disadvantage the very learners they seek to support if implementation contexts are not adequately considered. Addressing educational inequality requires more than ambitious pedagogy – it demands alignment between curricular vision, resourcing and the lived realities of schools in deprived areas.

This blog post is based on the article ‘’ by Nikki Jones, published in BERJ.

References

Jones, N. (2023). Progressive early-years approaches and the disadvantaged learner: The case of the Welsh Foundation Phase (Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University).

Jones, N. (2025). Progressive early-years education and the disadvantaged learner: Insights from the Welsh Foundation Phase.

Power, S., Newton, N., & Taylor, C. (2020). ‘Successful futures’ for all in Wales? The challenges of curriculum reform for addressing educational inequalities. The Curriculum Journal, 31(2), 317–333.

Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred education in international perspective: Whose pedagogy for whose development? Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.