Equality and equity are not just semantic alternatives, but fundamentally different principles on how we perceive and address situations, particularly in relation to the allocation of resources. While equality ensures that resources (in the widest sense) are distributed to everyone with an identical quota, equity ensures that resources are allocated on the basis of individual need, and this requires it to be disproportionate and unequal in order to achieve fairness in the long term.

This famous image demonstrates the nuances of the principle and its intentional outcome. By reallocating a box, it enables the shortest child to see over the fence and therefore achieve the same experience as the tallest one – in this case their view of a baseball game. Without moving the box, shortest child will not fully watch game, instead left trying to view it through the cracks in the fence.Did you notice the tallest child, although having their personal box removed, can still see the baseball game showing they did not need the support available?

The message is clear.For there to be experiential parity a uniform ‘one size fits all’ distribution is ineffective.We have taken this principle as both our starting point and our call to action.That’s why we have started our hey! ‘Moving the Box’ programme in several areas across the country.

It is evident from a range of national data and research that although the number of children attaining a Good Level of Development (GLD) at the end of YR is rising, the gap between children – generally defined by Social Economic Status (SES) is widening. The seriousness of this should not be underestimated. Gaps that start in the EYFS and are sustained to the end of YR typically get wider as children get older and further up the education system.

Of course, the reasons for this are complex and multidimensional, with a range of disparate factors playing their part. For each child, there will be an individual and unique narrative that underpins what is termed their ‘barriers to learning’. Let’s also be clear that while the attainment of a GLD is a useful gauge or proxy of attainment – an indicator of the sometimes-provocative phrase ‘school readiness’ – it is a bigger symbol of what lies beneath, not perhaps the attainment of the GLD itself, but the competencies, strengths, broader knowledge, experience and attributes of the kind of child that attains a GLD.

We know that the starting point for EYFS – particularly for YR – can vary considerably. Previous EYFS context and history, the quality of provision and non-statutory attendance play their part, as do their family context, term of birth, gender and identified SEND. However, while these might be variables that need to be considered there are other elements which can have equal, if not greater, impact.

Increasingly, there is an awareness that children’s cultural capital, their experiences, view and knowledge of the world around them, their social capital gleaned for interactions with other people within their family and community, and their linguistic and literary capital absorbed from back-and-forth conversations and books are critically important. When children enter EYFS provision, especially YR, they do so with a progressively evolving view of themselves in terms of cultural identity, their knowledge(s) of the world around them (both immediately and beyond) and, perhaps most importantly their perceptions of themselves as successful learners and their relationship with the adults they encounter. These elements form a significant basis of the child’s trajectory, and GLD or ELGs aside; their likelihood of being on a route to being a successful learner.

Therefore, the components for a successful learner are, at least equally, as much to do with a child’s experiences, attributes and confidence as a learner as the knowledge and skills they develop. It means we should think ‘out of the box’ if we are going to be successful in moving it for the children most in need.

The Ofsted publication ‘Strong Foundations’ (2024) highlights the nature of the challenge: “Our evidence suggests that the children who are already the most knowledgeable and confident get the most out of Reception and key stage 1” (these are the tallest children who can see the baseball game but are still standing on a box).It goes on: “Those who need the most help to secure firm learning foundations do not always get the teaching and practice they need. As a result, even at this young age, some children fall further behind their peers. Once children fall behind, it is hard for them to catch up” (these are the children who, regardless of having a box, still cannot see over the fence).

If we take the metaphor of the box to symbolise a resource, the implication is noticeable. Children who start EYFS, especially YR, with reduced capital: experiential, social, linguistic and literary need more ‘resources’, that is, more attention and more specifically fine-tuned focus from the educators working for them. Perhaps the most uncomfortable consideration here is this will be disproportionate, and at the expense of the children who enter with high levels of different ‘capitals’.We are metaphorically ‘moving the box’ from one child to another. Let’s be confident, this is not creating another dimension of disadvantage, those children are more likely to succeed, take advantage of provision, respond to teaching, initiate conversations, and bring their developing knowledge and confidence to follow their highly motivated interests and fascinations.This is about applying the principles and processes of equity.

So, what might this actually look like in practice? Again, ‘Strong Foundations’ (Ofsted 2024) points to what the evidence suggests: “Children who begin school with the lowest starting points and those who start to fall behind are the most affected by weaknesses in curriculum, teaching and assessment. This vulnerable minority of children are more likely to suffer when opportunities to learn are not equitable. Adults tend not to interact with them as much as they do with other children. Although they need the most teaching and opportunities for practice, these children often get the least. As a result, the gap between them and their peers widens”.

The report adds: “Research suggests that children who struggle with learning have fewer social conversations and caring interactions with adults than other children. More of their interactions with adults focus on managing behaviour (sic)… Sometimes we see adults giving more attention to the confident and articulate children. This further promotes their intellectual and social development at the expense of the minority who need the most support. Knowledgeable and sociable children also spend more time engaged in rich learning activities, attracting further contributions from adults. Meanwhile, other children appear to learn how to blend into the background, so they go unnoticed.”