The Gatekeepers of Childhood

There is a quiet contradiction at the heart of Scotland’s early years system.

We say we value children, that we understand the importance of the early years, and that childcare is fundamental to equality, economic growth and wellbeing. These are not contested ideas; they sit comfortably across policy, practice and politics. And yet, despite this shared language, the system we have built does not consistently reflect those values in how it operates in reality.

Instead, we continue to operate within a structure that restricts access, limits innovation and concentrates decision-making power in the hands of those who are often far removed from the lived experiences of children, families and practitioners. In practice, those gatekeepers are local authorities, who control how funding is distributed, which providers are able to deliver funded hours, and ultimately which settings families are able to access.

Listening to the recent early learning and childcare hustings, what stood out was not an absence of concern, but an absence of willingness to fundamentally shift this structure. There was clear recognition, particularly from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, of the disparity in pay across the workforce and the unsustainable expectations placed on practitioners. There were also hints toward alternative funding models, including voucher-style approaches that would move funding more directly to families.

However, what was notably absent was any firm commitment to move away from a system in which local authorities remain the primary gatekeepers of access, funding and delivery. This is an important distinction, because acknowledging problems within the system is not the same as being prepared to redesign it.

At the same time, almost every political party is signalling an intention to expand early years provision. There is increasing recognition that the current offer does not go far enough, particularly for younger children, and that childcare must play a greater role in supporting both child development and parental employment. Alongside this, there is an explicit acknowledgement that the private, voluntary and independent sector will be essential in delivering that expansion.

And yet, this recognition is not matched by a model that makes expansion viable.

Because from a business perspective, the question becomes unavoidable: who is willing to take on the financial risk of opening or expanding a provision, investing in land, staffing and infrastructure, while operating within a system where funding levels are inconsistent, access is controlled externally, and providers are not always treated as equal partners?

If the sector is expected to grow, it must also be enabled to do so. At present, there is a growing tension between political ambition and operational reality, and it is the PVI sector that sits at the centre of that gap.

A System Defined by Geography, Not Need!

In theory, Scotland offers funded early learning and childcare for all eligible children, built on principles of choice, flexibility and a commitment to funding following the child. In practice, what families experience is heavily shaped by geography.

Recent decisions by West Lothian Council and City of Edinburgh Council to restrict cross-boundary funding have made this increasingly visible. What was once intended to be a flexible, provider-neutral system is being reshaped by local financial pressures, resulting in a model where access is determined less by need and more by administrative boundary.

The implications of this shift are not hypothetical. As highlighted in Evaluating Cross-Boundary Childcare Provision in Scotland: Insights from an Edinburgh Case Study, restricting cross-boundary access limits key principles such as parental choice and flexibility, and undermines the intention that funding should follow the child.

In practice, this means that families are often unable to access the setting that best meets their needs, even when that setting is geographically close or aligned with their work patterns and educational values. Instead, they are required to navigate what is available within their own local authority, regardless of suitability.

The consequences are far-reaching. Parents report being pushed into provision that does not align with working hours, increasing reliance on informal childcare, or restructuring employment entirely. As highlighted in Evaluating Cross-Boundary Childcare Provision in Scotland: Insights from an Edinburgh Case Study, a significant proportion of families experienced increased childcare costs, longer travel times and changes to working patterns as a direct result of these restrictions.

This is not simply a matter of inconvenience. It is a structural issue that disproportionately impacts those with the least flexibility, reinforcing existing inequalities, particularly for women.

When Policy Meets Practice

What makes this particularly challenging is that the current situation is not due to a lack of policy ambition. The principles already exist. National guidance explicitly states that families should not be restricted to accessing provision within their own local authority area and that funding should follow the child across different types of providers.

As highlighted in Evaluating Cross-Boundary Childcare Provision in Scotland: Insights from an Edinburgh Case Study, the way policy is implemented at a local level can significantly alter its impact, creating a disconnect between intent and experience.

This disconnect is where the system begins to fail.

Because while the language of flexibility and choice remains, the lived reality for many families is one of constraint, compromise and, in some cases, exclusion from the provision that best supports their child.

The Reality for Providers

For those working within the PVI sector, this tension is equally apparent.

These settings are not supplementary to the system; they are integral to it. They deliver a significant proportion of funded early learning and childcare, often providing the flexibility, relational approaches and responsiveness that families are actively seeking.

And yet, despite this, they operate within a system where access to funding is controlled externally, partnership status is not always guaranteed even when national standards are met, and decision-making sits with bodies that are also providers themselves.

This creates a structural imbalance that would be difficult to justify in any other sector. Providers are expected to deliver a public service, but without the security, consistency or recognition that would normally accompany that responsibility.

It also raises a fundamental question about sustainability. If expansion is a political priority, and if the PVI sector is expected to deliver that expansion, then the conditions under which that sector operates must support growth rather than inhibit it.

At present, that is not the case.

What This Looks Like in Practice

At Little Bugs, these structural issues are not abstract; they are visible in the experiences of the children and families we work with.

Families come to us because the provision available within their local authority is not meeting their child’s needs. They are not seeking something different for the sake of it, but because they have already experienced a system that does not fit their child.

For many of these children, particularly those with additional support needs, anxiety or sensory differences, an outdoor, relational environment is not simply an alternative; it is the setting in which they are able to feel safe, regulated and able to engage in learning.

When cross-boundary funding is removed, access to that environment is often lost immediately. Children are required to leave settings where they have established relationships, routines and a sense of belonging, not because the provision is unsuitable, but because it sits outside an administrative boundary.

As highlighted in Evaluating Cross-Boundary Childcare Provision in Scotland: Insights from an Edinburgh Case Study, parents describe the impact of removing children from environments where they had built strong relationships and felt secure.

These are not neutral transitions. They involve emotional, developmental and practical consequences that extend far beyond the immediate change in setting.

The Workforce We Are Quietly Losing

Alongside these structural challenges sits a workforce that is being asked to carry increasing levels of responsibility without corresponding recognition or reward.

Practitioners are supporting children with complex needs, delivering curriculum, providing emotional care and working closely with families, often within systems that are under pressure and lacking flexibility. The expectation placed upon them continues to grow, while pay and conditions remain inconsistent and, in many cases, insufficient.

There is a clear and unavoidable relationship between pay and perceived value. When responsibility increases but remuneration does not reflect that, the message received by the workforce is equally clear.

It is therefore unsurprising that the sector is experiencing retention challenges, with experienced practitioners leaving roles that are both emotionally and professionally demanding.

A System at Breaking Point

Taken together, these issues point to a system that is under significant strain. One that relies heavily on the PVI sector while limiting its ability to operate effectively, that promotes flexibility while introducing restrictions, and that speaks of equity while allowing geography to shape access.

Cross-boundary bans, inconsistent funding, restricted provider access and workforce pressures are not isolated problems. They are interconnected outcomes of a system that has not yet reconciled its ambitions with its structure.

A Different Way Forward

There is an opportunity to approach this differently. To move toward a system in which funding genuinely follows the child, where families are able to access the provision that meets their needs regardless of local authority boundaries, and where providers are treated as equal partners within a coherent and sustainable framework.

Such a system would require not only policy commitment, but a willingness to reconsider how power is distributed within early years provision and how decisions are made.

The Question We Need to Ask

If we are serious about the importance of early years, and if we understand the long-term impact of these experiences on children’s lives, then the question we must ask is not whether the system should expand, but whether it is currently designed in a way that allows it to do so fairly, sustainably and in the best interests of children.

Until that question is addressed, the risk is that we continue to build on a system that, despite its intentions, does not consistently deliver for those it is meant to serve.

And in that context, a child’s access to the right education should never be determined by which side of a council boundary they are born or live in.

References

MacRae, C., Salamon, H. and Fisher, D. (2026) Evaluating Cross-Boundary Childcare Provision in Scotland: Insights from an Edinburgh Case Study. Glasgow: University of Glasgow Centre for Public Policy.

Pregnant Then Screwed (2026) Early Learning and Childcare Hustings – Scottish Election 2026 [Video]. Available at: Early Learning and Childcare Hustings 2026

The Herald (2026) ‘Councils pushing boundaries on Scotland’s childcare promise’, The Herald Scotland. Available at: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25914438.councils-pushing-boundaries-scotlands-childcare-promise/ (Accessed: 13 April 2026).

Daily Record (2026) ‘First Minister doubles down on criticism of childcare funding decisions’, Daily Record. Available at: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/first-minister-doubles-down-criticism-36843039 (Accessed: 13 April 2026).