Why the Socially Disadvantaged Criteria matters

The Department of Education has proposed permanently removing the “Socially Disadvantaged Criteria” (SDC) on Pre-School admissions. Minister Paul Givan, has already instructed the Education Authority to limit its interpretation of the current legislation to how it was written in 1999, meaning that approximately just 27 households will qualify under the SDC for the 2027 academic year. This policy change is deeply harmful to some of our most disadvantaged children, and could have long lasting implications for educational disparities.

In its own impact assessment, the Department of Education has outlined that pre-school provision is universal and has been for the last decade. This simply is not the case, as currently children can either access a pre-school place for 12.5 hours per week, or a pre-school place for 22.5 hours per week (full-time provision).

Therefore, full-time pre-school places are not universally available, which goes to the heart of why children from socially disadvantaged are prioritised.  The Department of Education has undertaken a ‘standardisation’ process, which aims to ensure 100% of settings offer full-time provision. However, as it stands, only 65% of settings offer 22.5 hours. The only circumstances where it is appropriate to remove the SDC criterion is where all children are guaranteed a full-time place.

The rationale from the Minister of Education is that the “Socially Disadvantaged Criteria” was “discriminating against hard-working families”. And removing it would “level the playing field” for pre-school admissions.

Yet, the Department is not ensuring that full-time pre-school is universally available before removing this criteria which currently exists to protect children from disadvantaged backgrounds and to expose them to the benefits of early education and therapeutic interventions. In the context of rising child poverty levels and the ongoing lack of an anti-poverty strategy, removing the minimum levels of protection provided to low income children will only compound the growing disadvantage gap.

Research consistently shows that there is a development gap between the poorest children and their socio-economically advantaged peers before they begin school (Sutton Trust, 2024). Further research emphasises the benefit the poorer children get from longer hours in early education settings, which supports school readiness (Ruhm, 2012; Melhuish and Gardiner, 2023).

Melhuish and Gardener (commissioned by the Sutton Trust) carried out new analysis of the Study of Early Education and Development (SEED), which is a longitudinal study looking at the impact of early years provision, the home environment and parenting on socio-emotional development by looking at the number of hours children benefit from in early years provision and how it differs by socio-economic background. The research clearly shows that for disadvantaged children (defined in the research as those in the bottom 40% of income distribution), that there are clear benefits in early years provision up to 20 hours per week. This finding aligns with the prioritisation of disadvantaged children for access to nursery settings which can currently provide 22.5 hours per week.  

Furthermore, recent years have brought to the fore significant socio-economic shocks for children, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the in-going cost of living crisis, evidence suggests that the development gap between poor children and more well off children is widening (National Audit Office, 2025; Education Policy Institute, 2025). This demonstrates how important it is to maintain the current and limited protection that currently exists for disadvantaged children.

In this context, it’s perplexing that the Minister for Education, who is responsible for ensuring equitable access to education, would seek to increase barriers to education for socially disadvantaged children.