In early childhood education, five years is a long time. Policies change, research grows, funding models evolve, and the kids themselves—well, they keep coming in without realizing if the advice their practitioners depend on has kept up. Birth to 5 Matters, the non-statutory framework used in thousands of settings nationwide, no longer accurately reflects the realities practitioners face every morning when they open their doors. OMEP UK and more than a dozen coalition partners have been signaling that this tension is at the heart of a growing movement within England’s early years sector.
The initial guidelines were released on March 31, 2021, at an odd time when Covid restrictions were still in place and the updated Early Years Foundation Stage was set to go into effect in September of that same year. It was ambitious, shaped by a coalition of sixteen sector organizations, including the Froebel Trust, Montessori Global Education, and OMEP UK itself, and co-constructed through surveys that received over three thousand responses. It was not a checklist, but rather a support for “informed professional judgement,” according to Nancy Stewart, the project lead at the time. It was widely accepted by the industry. Practitioners reported improvements in confidence and professional growth in interim assessments. That seemed sufficient for a while.
However, the scenery continued to change. Funded spots for infants starting at nine months of age became a reality, necessitating more specific instructions on how to work with children under the age of two than the original document offered. As digital technology became more prevalent in both living rooms and classrooms, concerns about screen time, digital pedagogy, and how young children interact with gadgets that hardly existed in their current form at the time the guidelines were written surfaced. Once a peripheral issue, sustainability is now more central to curriculum thinking. And all of this was happening while practitioners on the ground, such as reception teachers, childminders, and nursery workers, were silently observing the gaps.
Late last year, the Early Years Coalition, chaired by Beatrice Merrick and headed by Early Education, declared that a second edition would be released. Merrick was careful to clarify that this was an update based on fresh research, new policy realities, and input from people who use the document on a daily basis rather than a complete rewrite. “We know Birth to 5 Matters is widely used and valued,” she stated, noting that effective channels of communication had been established with Ofsted and the Department for Education. Despite its many positive aspects, the first edition seems to have been created in a more hostile environment, with Conservative MPs openly criticizing its anti-racism stance and the term “white privilege” making headlines. Though not totally, the political landscape has changed since then.
The scope of the revision process is remarkable. With the help of a preliminary survey carried out in November of last year, 122 experts divided into 23 working groups have carefully reviewed the current text. New sections on sustainability, digital pedagogy, and age-specific approaches covering infants, toddlers, two-year-olds, three- to four-year-olds, and children of reception age are included in the draft that was released in March 2026. The industry as a whole was asked to comment on whether the changes felt like real advancements or merely rearranged furniture in a second survey that ran through April.
It’s difficult to ignore how meticulously the coalition is controlling expectations. Stewart has stressed that modifications were made “only where there is evidence that the revision is an improvement,” a statement that functions as a diplomatic barrier against detractors who might charge the organization with going too far. The final version, which is anticipated to be released by summer 2026, will come with updated online resources and a redesigned website—small details that matter when your audience consists of everyone from newly qualified staff members still getting their bearings in a nursery room to doctorate-level researchers.
It’s unclear if the second edition actually meets practitioners’ needs. Even well-crafted guidance documents can only go so far in situations where pay is low, staffing ratios are tight, and the gap between policy language and day-to-day practice frequently seems insurmountable. However, the fact that this update was shaped by thousands of voices and that groups like OMEP UK publicly advocated for it shows that something significant is taking place. Better tools were requested by the industry. It is currently awaiting the toolbox’s delivery.
