As the early years sector sees a continued shift towards larger nursery groups, Sharon Nash explores what this means for children’s development, arguing that critical thinking must remain central in an increaslying business led landscape.

A recent report by Nursery World, Nursery-groups-report-2026, states that Kids Planet, fuelled by rapid acquisitions and growth, now has the second largest number of early years education settings. The report confirms an ongoing shift from many small independent settings to fewer, larger operators, with the top three organisations providing almost 80,000 of the UK’s nursery places.

Business led models are reshaping early years education, with a thrust for scale and financial viability. In the business sense of value for money, standardisation often becomes the default with accompanying accountability frameworks that drive practice.  Tensions between quality and cost can result in a compliance which satisfies inspection frameworks and investor interests but constrains practitioner autonomy and child-centred priorities. It is the ‘Macdonaldisation’ of education! 

Because some learning is difficult to measure, the emphasis on standardised and measurable outcomes risks the simplification of knowledge, and a robbing of meaning from individual histories. For example, a standardised activity, “All about me”, designed to assess language and communication skills, assesses response using a checklist aligned to measurable outcomes. Because the assessment values consistency and measurability, the educator steers the child who lives between two homes towards simple, expected answers that fit the scoring sheet: “Pick just one”. In this way, lived realities and individual histories are flattened to standardised responses, so children learn that what makes their family or experiences unique doesn’t count. What cannot be easily measured is quietly ignored and it could be argued that this model, prioritising measurable outcomes over meaningful practice, results in education becoming another tick‑box. 

But who is able to challenge this? This marketisation of the sector provides a backdrop to my research into the mentoring of apprentices and subsequent decisions to stay or leave a profession where retention is an ongoing concern. Apprenticeships can be seen as a solution to recruitment, and larger organisations run their own dedicated in-house apprenticeship programmes. However, uniform processes and compliance-led learning environments do not always leave room for individuals to think deeply about their work or question what is going on around them. At the heart of this issue is the need for apprentices and practitioners to develop strong critical-thinking skills in order to make sense of practice and develop as professionals.

So how can this critical reflection and questioning be encouraged? Can the mentoring relationship support this? Early years practitioners need safe spaces where they can talk openly, admit uncertainty, question standard practices, and challenge ideas that don’t always make sense in real settings. When practitioners are able to do this, they can push back against pressures from policy, managerial targets, and accountability to resist narrow, simplified ideas about the real meaning of their role. This gives them the chance to shape their own understanding of professionalism, regain a sense of autonomy, and even drive positive change in their workplace. Ultimately, when practitioners feel empowered rather than constrained, they are far more likely to stay in the profession and continue contributing their expertise to the sector.

Sharon Nash, is a University Instructor in Business and Academic Sessionals, School of Business, Law, and Policing.