One of the most striking findings from our recent research on the impact of the pandemic on early years education was the scale of the impact on pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL).

This finding is particularly disturbing given the recent changes to government policy that show a lack of recognition of the specific needs of these learners.

Overall, our research showed that the difference between children in our sample who reached a good level of development at the end of Reception compared to the 2018-2019 cohort was 13 percentage points.

However, for children learning EAL, that figure is higher with a difference of 16 percentage points.  

How EAL pupils were affected 

Looking at the different learning areas of the early years foundation stage profile (EYFSP), 15 per cent fewer of the children learning EAL in our sample achieved at least expected in communication and language compared to children who have English as a first language.

For literacy and personal, social and emotional development (PSED), this difference is approximately 10 per cent and, for maths, this difference is 11 per cent. For physical development, the difference is smaller at 6.5 per cent.

These findings are perhaps unsurprising since the EYFSP relies heavily on proficiency in English. Communication and language, PSED, literacy and maths all rely on English oral language skills.

Even physical development relies on understanding instructions, engaging in imaginative play with peers and adults, and understanding and responding to feedback from adults.

Therefore, children who are at the early stages of learning English are already at a disadvantage and so, even before the pandemic, a smaller proportion of children learning EAL typically reached expected levels on the EYFSP compared to their English-speaking peers.

Widespread areas of learning loss 

With reduced access to early years settings, limited social interaction outside of the home and the disruption of the third lockdown, children learning EAL were clearly at risk of not developing their English language skills, or even losing the language they had already acquired and, as such, being differentially affected when it came to the completion of the EYFSP. 

However, the situation is not clear cut, as the term EAL encompasses both children who have little or no English, and children who are proficient bilinguals or even multilinguals.

As such, the broad term EAL is not particularly meaningful. What matters is not whether you speak English as a first, second or even third language, but whether you have sufficient proficiency in English to allow you to meet the expected levels in the different learning areas, as shown by Strand and Hessell in the 2018 Bell Foundation report.

Unfortunately, many children who start Reception with little or no English are unlikely to reach English fluency by the time they leave primary school. A recent report estimates this figure to be nearly 70 per cent and this may have increased as a result of the pandemic.

Teachers bear witness to the impact 

All of this is, unsurprisingly, of concern to teachers, as highlighted by a recent report by the Bell Foundation. Their findings show that 69 per cent of respondents reported the pandemic had a negative impact on children learning EAL.

In terms of their English language skills, 74 per cent of primary teachers reported that they had seen language loss in their EAL pupils. Importantly, 15 per cent of those teachers who reported a loss of language learning also reported that their pupils were less confident in the classroom, suggesting that for some children this also had a negative impact on their socioemotional wellbeing.

Unfortunately, government policy has shifted over the past few years, effectively ignoring the specific needs of children learning EAL. In 2016-17, schools were required to report on the English language proficiency of their EAL pupils.

In 2018, the Department for Education withdrew this requirement meaning this data is no longer centrally reported, and in many cases not even collected. Some teachers continue to monitor their children’s English language proficiency in order to support the pupils in their class.

However, not having this data held centrally means policymakers are not able to identify groups of children who need help with their English language development and thus to help them make informed decisions about how best to support these children at the national or regional level.

More recently, the Education Inspection Framework, published in 2019, made no mention of children learning EAL and, as of last year, Ofsted no longer has a national lead for EAL, English for speakers of other languages (Esol) and Gypsy, Roma and Travellers.

As such, there is no longer any official requirement to meet the specific needs of these children.

The resources that can help

So how do we ensure these children are supported to reach their full potential?

There are few evidence-based interventions that target children learning EAL, with organisations such as The Bell Foundation and NALDIC providing advice, training and resources to help schools give children learning EAL the support they need.

In addition, schools and early years settings can use the Bell Foundation’s assessment tools to monitor English language proficiency and identify children who may need additional help.

However, the results of our study suggest that the government needs to revisit its recent policy decisions regarding children learning EAL to ensure they are not at risk of further disadvantage.

Claudine Bowyer-Crane is associate research director, education and skills at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; Sara Bonetti is director of early years at the Education Policy Institute; Louise Tracey is a senior research fellow at the University of York