Nurseries opened in empty classrooms under a government programme are less likely to be in more deprived schools than pre-existing provision, despite an aim to widen access in poorer areas. The school-based nurseries capital programme allows primary schools to bid for funding to repurpose disused space into early years provision. A report examining the programme, based on research by the Sutton Trust and the Social Market Foundation, was published today. It found the nurseries were around a third less likely to be in schools serving disadvantaged areas compared to pre-existing nurseries. This is despite the second phase of the project aiming to target those disadvantaged communities. Carl Cullinane, director of research and policy at the Sutton Trust, said the programme was “now facing a reality check”, and that “there’s still a mountain to climb in creating new places, and targeting them in the right areas”. He added that the government needed to provide more financial support and guidance to schools. The scheme also needs to be “far better targeted where it can make the most difference”, and ministers must “re-examine access to early education for the lowest income families”. Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the NEU, said the report “highlights the serious deficiencies of the government’s approach”, as well as the “significant barriers” schools face. Since May, councils rather than schools have been encouraged to submit multi-year bids to open new nurseries. The scheme also now funds provision in family hubs, not just on school sites or in existing nurseries. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of NAHT, said he hoped the change would “ensure better coordination across all sectors and that funding and support reaches the areas and children the government is trying to target”. Tiffnie Harris, primary specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was “sensible” for councils to play a greater role. “Many schools simply lack the necessary space requirements and clearly there remain concerns around funding and financial viability. Where schools do have capacity there is no guarantee this correlates with local demand for childcare places.” As part of the research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, 1,372 senior leaders working in primary schools were surveyed via Teacher Tapp in February 2026. Staff at 13 different settings – including existing school-based nurseries, early years settings and schools with close relationships – were also interviewed. Here are the key findings of the report… 1. Most schools aren’t keen The survey found that 70 per cent of senior leaders without a SBN said their school was unlikely to set one up. Just 20 per cent said that they would, or that they were likely to set one up, with 3 per cent saying that they had plans in place at their school. The programme is part of Labour’s manifesto pledge to open an additional 3,000 nurseries by upgrading primary school space. But the report noted that even if all schools that said they were likely to set one up went through with their plans, it would still leave the programme falling significantly short of its target. 2. Lack of space the biggest factor There were a number of barriers to schools opening an on-site nursery, both practical and financial. The most common issue was a lack of indoor space, with 51 per cent of senior leaders reporting this. Fifty per cent reported high start-up costs and 46 per cent said it was not financially viable. Financial matters included the cost of staff-to-child ratios and the capital cost of converting school space. Schools from more affluent areas were more likely to report the lack of indoor space as a reason for not opening a nursery, while schools in more disadvantaged areas were more likely to report financial issues. 3. New provision has fewer deprived pupils The number of children eligible for free school meals supported in nurseries increased by just under 1 per cent between phase one and phase two, from 25.3 per cent to 26.2 per cent. This is also lower than the 27.7 per cent figure for pre-existing school-based nurseries. Entirely new nurseries funded through the programme have even lower levels of pupils eligible for free school meals, at 23 per cent. They were also around a third less likely to be located in the most disadvantaged schools, compared to pre-existing school nurseries. At the same time, 74 per cent of those working in schools with the most disadvantaged intakes said they had an onsite pre-school or nursery, compared to 49 per cent working in schools with the most affluent intakes. But previous government research found that while SBNs are more common in deprived areas, they typically offer far less holiday, wraparound or under-three childcare than other nurseries. 4. SBNs more likely to cater to older children The research found that almost all schools with early years settings (95 per cent) serve three- to four-year olds. But only 42 per cent cover two- to three-year olds, and just 6 per cent look after children between one and two. Case study school-based nurseries largely focused on three- to four-year olds, and said there was limited capacity for younger children due to space and staffing challenges. 5. Lack of links with off-site nurseries Although 89 per cent of senior leaders said it was important to have strong links with off-site nurseries, 73 per cent said they their school does not coordinate at all with local external providers. They listed a number of barriers to this, including time and capacity in school (49 per cent), low engagement from local settings (33 per cent) and the lack of shared data systems (33 per cent). 6. Calls for government to take action The report said the government should prioritise disadvantaged areas in the roll-out of school-based nurseries, and look at ways to improve relationships between schools and local nursery providers. It added that the purpose of the programme – whether to expand childcare places quickly or improve access to high-quality early education – needed to be clarified. It noted that these aims “do not always align, and providers are not always clear about what they should be prioritising”. Schools and early years providers also need to ensure that they are serving disadvantaged households, and that their provision must remain age-appropriate for younger learners, the report concluded.