Abstract
This paper investigates graduates’ perceptions of quality provision in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Drawing on qualitative data from former and final-year Early Childhood Studies (ECS) students across three English higher education institutions, the study explores how higher education and placement shape graduates’ approaches to and perceptions of quality when working with children from birth to five years of age. Freire's approach to education, which emphasises dialogue, critical thinking and social transformation, proves to be a useful theoretical tool for highlighting the critical role of higher education in developing the knowledge, skills and reflective competencies necessary for delivering high-quality care and education for young children. Findings reveal that graduates conceptualise quality not simply as a set of measurable outcomes but as a complex relationship between professional knowledge, professional practice and relational accountability. The study argues that there is a growing and urgent need for policy frameworks that acknowledge and support a graduate-led workforce, and contextually grounded understandings of quality within ECEC settings. This has the potential to inform improvements in student placement experiences, strengthen university–stakeholder partnerships and guide policymakers in (re)designing the ECEC qualifications framework.
Introduction
This paper investigates graduates’ perceptions of quality provision and services in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in England. Drawing on qualitative data from final-year and former Early Childhood Studies (ECS) students across three higher education institutions in the southeast of England, the study explores how higher education contributes to shaping graduates’ professional identities and understandings of quality in working with children from birth to five years of age. In England, the statutory framework for ECEC is defined by the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (Department for Education (DfE), 2025a), which sets measurable standards for quality learning, development and care, alongside welfare and safeguarding requirements. These standards underpin the inspections of the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted). In England, Ofsted inspects and regulates most educational institutions/schools including early years provision to ensure they meet legal and quality standards. In 2025, Ofsted implemented a new inspection toolkit which outlines how each provider is evaluated across distinct areas such as inclusion, curriculum and teaching, achievement, attendance and behaviour, personal development and well-being, leadership and governance and a separate safeguarding check. The revised framework aims to strengthen service quality by providing clearer and fairer evaluations, identifying areas of excellence and areas requiring support, particularly in relation to inclusion, well-being and outcomes for disadvantaged pupils. It also seeks to offer transparent and accessible information for parents, learners and policymakers (Ofsted, 2025).
Despite these regulatory expectations, a higher education degree is not required to work in the sector; the minimum qualification remains a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) at Levels 2 and 3 (DfE, 2025b), which aligns with high school leaving certificates at age 17 and 19, respectively. The EYFS (DfE, 2025a) provides an exemplar of what a level 3 practitioner should know and be able to do to support children's development from birth to five years of age. This qualification threshold, coupled with the sector's persistent characterisation as gendered, low-status and low-paid, contributes to dominant narratives of ECEC work as ‘unskilled’ (Malhotra, 2022; Vandenbroeck et al., 2016; Vincent and Braun, 2013). Interestingly, debates on a graduate-led workforce have been a European concern, with research from Urban et al. (2012) highlighting the importance of professional qualifications and practitioner/educator competence. From our and others’ research, a central question emerges: Should ECEC be delivered by graduate-level professionals or is vocational training sufficient? This fragmentation continues to fuel debates around whether current models of accountability adequately reflect the complex realities of ECEC practice (Mikuska et al., 2025). Concerns persist regarding low qualification requirements, which reinforce structural issues of fragmentation, limited professional recognition and poor remuneration.
The context of ECEC in England
ECEC in England operates within a complex and dynamic landscape shaped by government policy, market-driven provision, regulatory frameworks (Bradbury and Roberts-Holmes, 2018; Fairchild and Mikuska, 2024; Lloyd, 2013) and evolving understandings of professionalism, pedagogy and quality (Nutbrown, 2021; Palaiologou and Male, 2018). As the importance of early childhood for children's long-term development becomes increasingly recognised (Richardson, 2025), the ECEC sector faces growing expectations to deliver high-quality education and care while navigating significant structural and financial challenges (Fairchild et al., 2022). One of the defining features of ECEC in England is its mixed economy of provision (Lloyd, 2012, 2013; Roberts-Holmes and Moss, 2021). Services are delivered by a diverse range of providers, including state-maintained nursery schools and classes, private nurseries, voluntary organisations and childminders. This market-based model creates considerable variation in access, quality, staffing qualifications and levels as well as resources across different types of settings and geographic areas. Government-funded childcare entitlements are a core part of the system, with all three- and four-year-olds entitled to 15 h of free childcare per week, and eligible working families receiving up to 30 h per week (DfE, 2024). Additionally, disadvantaged two-year-olds are eligible for 15 h per week of free childcare (Hodges et al., 2025). While these entitlements aim to support working parents and improve early learning outcomes via what the UK Government has termed the Best Start in Life (UK Government, 2025), many providers argue that the funding does not fully cover the costs of delivery, which can impact sustainability and quality (Fairchild and Mikuska, 2024).
A key issue facing the sector is the composition and status of the workforce. While a small proportion of practitioners hold graduate-level qualifications, the majority are qualified below Level 3, and a significant number have no formal qualifications (DfE, 2024). The sector is still characterised by low pay, poor working conditions and limited career progression, contributing to high turnover and recruitment difficulties (Lloyd, 2013; Moss, 2019). In response, there have been efforts to professionalise the workforce, including the introduction of Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) in 2007 (Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC), 2008). The DfE (2013) replaced EYPS with Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS) in September 2014, and more recently, the Graduate Practitioner Competencies (GPC) framework was developed by the Early Childhood Studies Degrees Network (ECSDN 2019), an umbrella organisation consisting of higher education providers who deliver ECS degrees.
Access and equity also remain significant concerns within the English ECEC context (DfE, 2024). Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to attend high-quality settings led by qualified graduates, exacerbating existing inequalities (Morrissey et al., 2022; Roberts-Holmes and Moss, 2021). At the same time, parents face difficulties securing affordable and flexible ECEC, particularly in rural areas or for children with additional needs (DfE, 2024; Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2024). These issues highlight the systemic challenges that impact both the delivery and perception of quality within the sector. However, in recent years, the landscape has been shifted by new policy initiatives that have sought to expand entitlement hours and support workforce development, but without corresponding increases in funding or structural reform (Fairchild and Mikuska, 2024). As a result, ECEC providers and professionals are under increasing pressure to deliver more with fewer resources (Morrissey et al., 2022). Meanwhile, debates around the role of care versus education (Moss, 2019), play versus assessment, and developmental appropriateness versus school readiness (Campbell-Barr, 2025) remain central to discussions about what constitutes quality in the early years. Similarly, finding a placement for undergraduate students remains a challenge despite the argument put forward by Holman and Richardson (2021) that placement experiences are an invaluable tool for students to gain knowledge and skills that help them in building professional confidence.
Evidence from a recent survey conducted in England, Scotland and Wales by Hodges et al. (2025) highlighted how parental perspectives on quality often differ from official measures. Parents tended to associate quality with children's happiness, independence, friendships and improved communication skills. While some parents valued Ofsted inspection ratings, others prioritised friendly staff over formal qualifications, and many reported that they felt more confident about sending their child to school when these relational aspects were present. These policy and practice changes have marked a significant milestone in defining and professionalising the role of graduates within the ECEC sector. Situated within a landscape often dominated by policy discourses of accountability and standardisation, the GPC framework represents a shift towards a more holistic, reflective and socially conscious understanding of professional practice. The GPCs encourage students to critically engage with the social, cultural and political dimensions of early childhood practice, fostering what Freire (1972) termed critical consciousness. This process of consciousness raising moves beyond compliance with prescribed frameworks such as the EYFS (DfE, 2025a), and instead promotes an understanding of quality as contextually grounded, democratic and relational (Moss, 2019). Through reflection and dialogue, graduates are empowered to question inequalities and advocate for more inclusive and participatory practices within ECEC settings. These initiatives aim to strengthen the professional identity and capabilities of graduate practitioners, recognising the link between graduate leadership and improved outcomes for children.
Key challenges for the ECEC sector
Part of the discourses that surround early years education quality is the importance of staff reflexivity. We understand reflexivity as an ongoing critical examination of how educators’ identities, values and assumptions shape their interactions with children, families and colleagues (McLeod, 2019). It has been argued that a reflexive ECEC educator recognises that pedagogy is deeply relational and influenced by personal biography as well as wider social and organisational norms (Zehbe and Kaul, 2025); thus, pedagogical reflexivity is a key element of good professional practice. Against this backdrop, we argue that investigating graduates’ and soon-to-be graduates’ perceptions of quality is essential to strengthening the case that higher education contributes to higher-quality provision. For example, Hanhikoski and Sevón (2024) explored early childhood educators’ professional identity through narrative analysis, identifying three key narrative types: biographical stories reflecting life histories that shape career choices; value stories emphasising ethical commitments to children's well-being; and interaction stories highlighting relational dynamics with children, colleagues and families. Their research underlined how professional identity in ECEC is deeply relational, ethically grounded and shaped by both personal experience and structural conditions. Hanhikoski and Sevón (2024) demonstrated that for ECEC teachers, professional identity is not only about qualifications or tasks, but it is deeply shaped by life history, values, relational experiences and the possibility for ethical and value-driven action. Their study foregrounds how structural and organisational conditions (resources, workload, institutional support) impact greatly on whether educators can live out their professional identity.
Furthermore, Arndt et al. (2018) problematised the notion of singular ECEC educator identity, noting that identity is understood as contextual, local and unique to individuals, and is shaped by national variances and customs. Moss (2019) and Mikuska et al. (2025) further argued that the concept of quality in ECEC remains contested. Policymakers and inspection frameworks often emphasise school readiness, literacy and measurable developmental outcomes. In contrast, many practitioners, especially those with graduate-level training, value relational pedagogy, play-based learning, emotional well-being of staff and child-centred approaches. This tension is reflected in recent research by Fairchild et al. (2024), which highlighted the pressures practitioners face in balancing their professional judgement with accountability demands. A study by Holman and Richardson (2021) suggested that graduate practitioners often felt that their training equipped them to deliver holistic, inclusive and reflective practice, but that the current system did not always support or reward this approach.
Focus of this research
The present qualitative study employed a purposive sampling strategy to recruit participants who had completed or were in the final year of an ECS degree at one of three higher education institutions in the southeast of England. All 28 participants had opted to undertake the GPC assessment. The GPC framework require students to compile a portfolio evidencing their professional knowledge, skills and reflective practice, culminating in a final viva voce assessment that allows them to reflect on their placement experiences, engagement with the GPC standards and evolving understandings of quality provision in ECEC. Data were collected by recording the face-to-face meetings with those students who had agreed to be part of the research. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Portsmouth's Ethics Committee, and all participants provided informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout the research process, this included storing the anonymised interview recordings in a password protected folder on a Team's drive that only the researchers could access. Pseudonyms were used for all participants to ensure they could not be identified. The raw data were only available to the researchers, and no traceable data were used in the development of this article (Taquette et al., 2022).
The central contribution of this research is to offer contemporary graduate perspectives on the value of a higher education degree in understanding quality ECEC provision, placement experiences and the associated viva voce process. We explore how students engaged with their studies over the three-year period, focusing on their reflection concerning professional development and professional practice. This study further considers how these experiences have shaped and informed their understanding of quality provision in ECEC, and how such learning has contributed to the formation and evolution of their professional identity. The study was guided by the following research aims: (a) to explore final-year and former ECS degree students’ perceptions of quality provision, and (b) to gain deeper insight into students’ placement experiences and their role in shaping their professional identity and practice.
Theory and analysis
Freire's (1972) concept of dialogue and subjectivity provided a philosophical foundation for our analysis. Freire asserted that speaking is an important component of the subject and of subjectivity, positioning language and self-expression as fundamental to liberation and agency. From this perspective, the viva voce assessment can be interpreted as a space in which students assert their professional identity, exercise autonomy and engage in acts of self-determination. Defending their portfolio and reflecting critically on their learning becomes, therefore, not just an assessment task but a dialogic and transformative experience that leads to the development of their professional identity. Freirean approaches challenge educators to move beyond delivering education, instead encouraging the future ECEC workforce to co-construct learning with children, families and communities. Another key concept is the development of critical consciousness. For the ECEC workforce, this involves reflecting deeply on one's own values and positionality through the use of reflexive practice (MacNaughton, 2005, 2009) to question how assumptions and institutional practices may privilege some voices while silencing others. Through critical reflection, reflexivity and open dialogue, the ECEC workforce can become more aware of the power dynamics in their practice and work towards more equitable relationships with children and families. Ultimately, applying Freire's philosophy to ECEC reframes educators as transformative professionals rather than mere curriculum implementers, which will inevitably lead to high-quality provision.
We adopted a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke, 2021) due to the importance of reflexivity in early ECEC. Zehbe and Kaul (2025) conceptualised reflexivity as complex ‘knowledge work’ that requires educators to analyse not only their own beliefs but also the institutional frameworks, policy pressures and cultural expectations that shape their practice. They argued that reflexivity is essential for professionalisation, yet it is often constrained by workload, limited time and organisational cultures, highlighting the need for collective spaces that support reflective dialogue. McLeod (2019) had earlier argued that reflexivity must connect to both knowledge and practice and emphasised the ethical and power-laden dimensions of reflexivity. She argued that educators must attend to how their interpretations, language and positionality influence relationships and the experiences of those with whom they work. Together, these perspectives position reflexivity as a multi-layered competence – biographical, relational and structural – that enables educators to engage in more thoughtful, equitable and contextually attuned practice.
Initially, transcripts of the meetings were (re)read, and key terms, concepts and sentences were highlighted. Subsequently, the data were systematically coded, and these codes were distilled into overarching themes. The themes were then reviewed and refined through a recursive analytical process to ensure coherence, depth and the researchers’ interpretive understanding (Braun and Clarke, 2019). In this article, we report two key emergent themes identified in the data analysis. The first theme highlights how participants drew upon their three years of academic and practical experience to reflect critically on the quality of services provided to young children. The second theme centres on participants’ ability to evaluate their own professional development, identifying both the strengths of the programme they had completed and areas where the course did not fully prepare them for practice. It showed the positive influence the students had on the quality of provision, including outcomes from Ofsted inspections. As this remains an under-researched area, our work offers a deeper understanding of the value of the GPCs and the type of assessment through which participants’ professional identity can be crystallised.
How participants mobilise their three years of academic and practical experience to reflect on the quality of services
The reflection below illustrates Freire's (1972) concept of critical consciousness as, in this quote, Alice revisits and critiques earlier academic work rather than accepting it uncritically: I used my first-year assignment as evidence [against the GPC standards] which was oh, lovely, it was about communication and language development. Looking at Piaget's theory of stages of cognitive and language development, I can see now how this theory is outdated. You can … like … hinder or promote progress but it's not only to concrete or to follow it [the theory]. It is about to understand the child holistically. (Alice)
Rather than accepting Piaget's theory at face value, she begins to interrogate its limitations, particularly in its fixed and linear view of development. By suggesting that adherence to such a theory could potentially ‘hinder or promote progress’, she acknowledges the risk of over-reliance on prescriptive developmental models, especially if applied without considering the individual child. Furthermore, Alice's shift in focus to understanding the child ‘holistically’ reflects a deeper professional maturity and alignment with contemporary perspectives on child development. Holistic approaches, which emphasise the importance of social, emotional, cultural and relational dimensions of learning, are increasingly seen as central to quality ECEC (Moss, 2019). In doing so, she challenges the prescriptive nature of competency frameworks and externally imposed standards, advocating instead for relational and contextually grounded understandings of quality. Through this process, Alice positions herself as an active, critically reflective practitioner, embodying Freire's vision of education as a transformative and liberatory practice. Her informal tone (‘you can … like … hinder or promote’) also provides insight into the viva voce context and the performative aspects of professional identity construction, as Alice negotiates her position as a knowledgeable and reflective practitioner in front of the viva panel, shaping her self-presentation to align with the professional standards expected of a GPC graduate.
The following reflection, offered by Freya, a recent ECS graduate, captures the depth and complexity of learning that occurs when theoretical study is effectively integrated with placement experiences: The experience [placement] significantly enhanced my confidence working with children, especially to understand childhood theories. And my placement further helped me to understand safeguarding, including both broad policies and more nuanced aspects such as hygiene practices and meal monitoring, food safety… balancing university coursework, part-time employment and placement responsibilities required strong time-management skills, and I managed this. So proud of what I achieved, especially undertaking the GPCs. It gave meaningful connections between theoretical modules and practical application [in] the placement module. It increased my confidence personally and professionally, and I realised what transferable skills really means. (Freya)
Importantly, Freya does not simply recount the technical skills (Moss, 2019) gained during placement but foregrounds her improved confidence, resilience and critical evaluation of ECEC practice. This signals a shift from passive absorption of knowledge to active construction of meaning, another key Freirean tenet. Her awareness of ‘nuanced aspects’ of safeguarding (such as food safety and hygiene) also illustrates how professional knowledge of quality practice in ECEC is not limited to abstract frameworks but grounded in the lived realities of children's care. Her reflection further reinforces the value of placement-based learning as dialogical, a space where the learner is not positioned as a passive recipient of knowledge but as a co-constructor (Mikuska and Lyndon, 2021), engaging in a reciprocal relationship between university and practice settings. The ‘meaningful connections’ she draws between subjects covered at the university and placement experiences echo Freire's rejection of the investment model of education in favour of a dialogic one, where knowledge emerges through reflection and interaction with real-world challenges.
Placement experiences offer students critical opportunities to reflect on how socio-economic and cultural contexts shape children's daily lives (Holman and Richardson, 2021). Ruth's reflection captures this powerfully, as she recounts contrasting experiences in two ECEC settings, one situated in a more affluent context, and the other in a ‘deprived area’. My placements were interesting, actually, the different and differences between placements. So, the one that I did like more recently that was in … like … quite a deprived area … for the managers they’re quite middle class and they’re like do like some lovely meals and it did make, like, a real culture out of it. Like sitting down when eating and like the practitioners would have the same meal with the children. And I’d say, like, the nurseries offered different food. And children really enjoyed the different food, whereas, like, in the first placement was that was more of like a deprived area, and the quality of food was, like, less varied. Also, like, the children's attitudes were different. It was very chaotic at lunchtime [in the deprived area]. I didn’t enjoy helping out lunch time because it was just chaos. Like they didn’t want it [eating], they were crying and stuff. But I think it's interesting sort of seeing like a different sort of social backgrounds and how that's affecting mealtimes, which I think it's all reflected across all age groups. Again, this goes back to Bronfenbrenner. Yeah, yeah, definitely. It is about knowing the children, like their background, like what they eat and where they eat their meal. (Ruth)
Ruth's placement reflections are another example of the importance of equipping ECS students with both theoretical frameworks and critical reflective tools to understand and challenge inequality in ECEC. Placements, when structured to encourage analysis of context and practice, become sites of transformation where students begin to move beyond individual observations and engage with broader questions of equity, ethics and social justice. This highlights the role of higher education not simply in training for competence, but in fostering reflexive and critical pedagogues capable of responding to the diversity and complexity of ECEC settings, thus leading to quality services.
Participants’ ability to form their own professional identity
Mary's reflection on her learning journey through the ECS degree highlights a significant shift in her understanding of professional knowledge, from a list of completed subjects to an integrated, reflective and reflexive sense of self (Zehbe and Kaul, 2025). This shift exemplifies Freire's (1972) concept of education as a dialogical and liberating process, where learners move beyond passive reception of information to become critical co-constructors of knowledge (Mikuska and Lyndon, 2021). Like, you know, I think sometimes, like, people ask you what you’ve learned. And it's difficult to sort of say … like … going through all the topics or modules I have completed, like … OK, I’ve covered these and I got a good mark on these. The GPC is, like, different. It really helped me to reflect on my learning and what I know, not only on last year but like, from year one. The different things we have done, the difference between what I naturally know and what I have learnt and what I have observed in schools and nurseries. It feels like … like … one whole picture and it is satisfying. (Mary)
Freire viewed the process of becoming educated not as absorbing content but as naming the world, learning to see and make sense of one's experiences within broader social and structural realities. Mary's ability to distinguish between what she ‘naturally knows’, what she has ‘learnt’ and what she has ‘observed’ is evidence of this kind of critical engagement. It shows that she is not simply consuming knowledge but reconstructing it, integrating theory, practice and personal insight into a coherent whole. This sense of wholeness echoes Freire's vision of education as a transformative act, one that fosters both self-awareness and professional agency. The satisfaction Mary describes is not from external validation (e.g. marks or grades) but from an internalised understanding of her development, a shift from being taught about practice to becoming someone who can think within and about practice. Freire (1972) insisted that true learning involves praxis, stating that a key element is ‘reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it’ (1972: 51). Mary's reflection is an example of this praxis in action. Through the GPC framework, she reflects on her experiences, questions what she knows and synthesises that understanding into a clearer professional identity. This demonstrates the potential of the GPC framework to support not just compliance with competencies but critical professional identity formation, where students begin to see themselves as ethical, informed and reflective actors within the ECEC field.
Jess's narrative reveals that when educational structures, like the GPC framework, are grounded in critical, reflective practice, they can foster the kind of learning Freire envisioned – dialogical, integrated and liberating. Her journey from fragmented topics to what Mary calls a ‘whole picture’ of professional understanding is not only satisfying but emancipatory. It marks the development of a critical early years professional, capable of thoughtful, situated and socially aware practice. When I had an unannounced Ofsted visit a good few weeks ago, in April actually … I felt surprised, we had no idea they [Ofsted] were coming. I just opened the door thinking it was a parent, and then I saw [someone] with the badge. And then, it was very interesting to learn because I’ve never experienced [an] Ofsted inspection before, so that was really interesting because she just followed me around basically all day, yeah … So, she didn’t look at the older kids’ groups really at all. It's just my group, but she had a lot of questions. Yes, she said my knowledge was really good, and I [told her I] can now tell mostly from doing this [my degree], revisiting all the modules and all the artefacts. Really … she said she can tell that I do like my job because I told her that I do this course [ECS degree], and she said she could tell … like my knowledge and my understanding of things. (Jess) Researcher: So, which kind of questions did she ask specifically? She asked me about [adult: child] ratios, and she asked me about … eating rules and she asked me about how we decide what development the child needs. So, we had a few children with SEN [special educational needs] and she asked me what and which kind of … activities we offer, and what development they [the activities] expanded throughout the day and stuff like that. And she asked me how I know what activities to offer, and I said stuff just from, like, my observations. (Jess)
From a Freirean perspective, Jess embodies the ‘empowered learner’ who moves beyond passively acquiring knowledge to actively applying and reshaping it through lived experience. Her capacity to explain her decision-making about ratios, children's development and activities for those with SEN illustrates critical consciousness (Freire, 1972) in action. She understands not only what she does but why she does it, and she can articulate this meaningfully to others. Freire's (1972) concept of dialogic education is also relevant – through this real-world interaction, Jess affirms her subjectivity and agency as a practitioner capable of defending and explaining her decisions. Her confidence and the inspector's positive feedback mark a shift in how she perceives herself, not merely as a student but as a knowledgeable and competent ECEC professional, which inevitably will lead to quality early years provision. Through the lens of MacNaughton's reflexive practice (2005), Jess's narrative also shows the interplay between reflection and reflexivity. While she reflects on the event to evaluate her own practice, her awareness of how her knowledge, confidence and professional identity are perceived by the inspector demonstrates reflexivity – an understanding of self within broader institutional and social structures. In this sense, the Ofsted visit becomes more than an evaluative exercise and measure of quality. It is a site of professional transformation where academic learning, self-awareness and critical engagement merge to construct an empowered, competent ECEC workforce.
Discussion
Our contribution to the wider debates around English ECEC graduate professionalism, quality and qualifications is through our findings indicating that participants demonstrated a capacity to meaningfully draw on their three years of academic study and placement experience to critically evaluate and reflect on the quality of ECEC provision. This process was facilitated by the structure of the GPC framework, which encouraged students to integrate theory with practice when compiling their portfolios. One participant, Alice, highlighted this interplay by referencing an assignment from her first year; her reflection on this early academic work illustrates how, over time, she developed a more nuanced understanding of child development theory. This insight suggests that through the GPC process, students were able to revisit and reassess theoretical knowledge, considering their lived experiences in practice. The ability to move beyond the application of theory in a rigid or prescriptive manner toward a more contextualised and holistic view of the child reflects a maturing professional identity. It also illustrates how students use their academic grounding as a reflective tool to evaluate and contribute to the quality of ECEC services. An unintended finding of this research was the ways that placement experiences can strengthen the relationships between universities and placement provider settings. This has the potential to inform improvements in student placement experiences, strengthen university–stakeholder partnerships and guide policymakers in (re)designing future ECEC qualifications frameworks. The students who undertook the GPCs as part of their placement had an opportunity to model the impact of their academic learning and how this enhanced their professional practice. We argue that this is important given the policy expectations for ECEC and the issues around required qualifications for those in practice. What students demonstrated was the value of graduate study and the potential impact this could have for ECEC settings; we hope this can be part of a shift that results in policymakers valuing and supporting a graduate-led sector.
Participants’ reflections provide a rich example of how students mobilise both academic and practical (placement) experiences to construct a developing professional identity, particularly during assessment scenarios. Most of the narratives convey not only the acquisition of competencies but also a growing sense of belonging and recognition within the profession, suggesting that identity formation is experienced as both an intellectual and affective process. In this way, graduates exemplify how higher education can support students in constructing a confident, reflexive, critically engaged and ethically informed professional identity. Drawing on Freire's (1972) concept of critical consciousness, which challenges traditional developmentalist theories of child growth based solely on ages and stages, participants demonstrated a shift toward a more holistic understanding of the child. In this process, they enacted the role of the empowered learner, who is no longer passively receiving knowledge but actively reshaping it in relation to lived experience. Their ability to articulate and defend the ‘student’ position within the viva voce exemplifies Freire's (1972) assertion that in speaking, an individual can express their own conscious and unconscious subjectivity Thus, the GPC process facilitates not only professional learning but also personal transformation and self-determination within the field of ECEC. All participants reported that their placements provided them with lived opportunities to experience, reflect and act, mirroring Freire's praxis – the integration of reflection and action to transform reality. Through a Freirean lens, placements are sites of dialogue and transformation where students negotiate between theory (university learning) and practice (real-world settings). These experiences can lead to critical consciousness as students become aware of social, cultural and institutional inequalities in ECEC settings. Supervision and collaborative reflection can foster empowerment and help students construct their professional identity not as ‘technicians’ (Moss, 2019) following rules but as critical, reflective practitioners capable of questioning and improving practice. Therefore, in Freirean terms, quality is achieved when practitioners critically engage with their own assumptions, recognise structural inequalities and work collaboratively to create equitable learning environments. Consequently, quality provision in English ECEC can be understood as a transformative process, one that cultivates democratic participation, cultural awareness and the empowerment of both children and practitioners.
Furthermore, as mentioned above examples from the data reveal that when educational structures like the GPC framework are grounded in critical, reflexive and reflective practice, this can foster the kind of learning Freire envisioned – dialogical, integrated and liberating. Participants’ journeys from engaging with fragmented topics toward constructing a more holistic understanding of their professional role are described not only as intellectually satisfying but also as emancipatory. This process signifies the development of a professional identity that is both critically aware and socially responsive. For example, both Mary’s and Freya's narratives exemplify the formation of professional identity, aligning with Hanhikoski and Sevón's (2024) proposition emphasising biographical, ethical, relational and structurally situated dimensions. Mary demonstrated critical consciousness by challenging traditional, content-focused education and integrating theory with lived experience, developing a reflective and reflexive professional self. Freya's pride in her achievements reflects the internalisation of professional identity, where her values and relational experiences converged to shape her commitment to high-quality practice. Both highlight the ethical dimension, as their decisions and motivations centred on children's well-being; and the relational dimension, as interactions with peers and children informed their developing sense of self. Their experiences also reveal the importance of structural conditions, including the GPC framework, in enabling them to enact their values. Together, these accounts illustrate the formation of a strong professional identity. What these examples indicate is that when practitioners deepen their reflection on self and practice, professional engagement becomes increasingly thoughtful, situated and ethically informed, aligning with MacNaughton's (2005) notion of reflexive practice as a catalyst for social transformation within ECEC. Therefore, the development of professional identity is a transformative and dialogic process shaped by reflexive practices in continual negotiation between the ECEC workforce and children.
Conclusion
Our study adds to the growing body of research into the impact of graduate practitioners in ECEC. The findings indicate that improving working conditions, giving space for agency and supporting relational professionalism are critical not just for job satisfaction but for validating ECEC as a meaningful, value-based, professional endeavour, countering simplistic narratives that reduce ECEC work to ‘care’ or ‘unskilled labour’. We argue that even though this study has been conducted in England, a professional, well-qualified and knowledgeable ECEC workforce is a global concern, which is reflected in other research findings and policy documents (e.g. Arndt et al., 2018; DfE, 2025a; Urban et al., 2014). Like many other global contexts, ECEC in England is situated within a multifaceted policy and practice environment. Graduate professionals, who are increasingly recognised as key to driving quality, operate within a system that both values and constrains their expertise.
Understanding this context is essential for interpreting how graduate practitioners perceive and enact quality in their everyday work with young children and families. Participants’ reflections illustrated how engagement in higher education fosters the integration of theory and practice, a critical stance toward traditional developmental models and an emerging professional identity grounded in holistic, child-centred practice that leads to quality provision. We argue that the knowledge gained through their degree is a strong indicator of preparedness to contribute to high-quality provision in the ECEC sector. Participants’ accounts provide empirical support for a Freirean reading of professional formation within ECS degree programmes, as their experiences exemplify how professional practice, critical reflection and empowerment can be refined through well-structured, theory-informed placement opportunities. This highlights the significance of higher education in shaping not only the knowledge base of ECEC practitioners but also their critical consciousness, agency and professional voice. The study contributes to current literature by emphasising the need for policy frameworks that acknowledge and support graduate-led, contextually grounded understandings of quality within ECEC settings. This has the potential to inform improvements in student placement experiences, strengthen university–stakeholder partnerships and clarify what ‘graduateness’ means in the context of ECEC. Even with the attempts of previous governments to do this via EYPS and EYTS, we argue that a renewed policy focus on ECS degrees that include graduate-level practice placements (including those that assess GPCs) provides students with the tools to achieve Freirean critical consciousness, which, in turn, they will employ to support the development and life chances of young children.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like the thank the participants for giving freely of their time and for sharing their experiences. Their comments have really helped us understand their experiences and the value of graduates working in ECEC.
Consent for publication
All data have been anonymised and pseudonyms given to participants.
Data availability statement
The data are not available as they could be used to connect participants to locations, and this would counter our ethical approval.
Ethical approval and informed consent statements
Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Science at the University of Portsmouth on 8 July 2025 (reference number FHSS 2025-048). All participants gave informed consent to allow anonymised extracts from their data to be used in academic publications.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was not funded externally, however, the University of Portsmouth provided us with research workload time, and this was used for this project.
