Insights from a Conversation the Early Childhood Field Desperately Needed

Over the past decades, the field has grown stronger. The science is clearer. Policies exist where they once did not. Access has expanded in many places. And yet, despite this progress, early childhood Is widely recognized as important but rarely treated as a true priority. 

So, we decided not to repeat the familiar arguments. Instead, we asked something harder: What might not be working in the way we advocate, organize ourselves, and position the field? 

To explore this, we brought together voices that rarely sit around the same table: philanthropy, government, regional networks, research, and global policy leadership. What followed, I have to say, was not a polite exchange of familiar talking points. The answers were anything but predictable and that created a precious space for many insightful reflections. It was a conversation that surfaced disagreements and challenged some of the field’s most comfortable assumptions. 

One of the most striking moments came early in the discussion when Michael Feigelson, CEO at Van Leer Foundation, challenged the premise itself: “I actually think we have broken through quite a bit.” In his view, the last two decades have brought extraordinary shifts: from disbelief that anything meaningful happens in babies’ brains to widespread recognition of early development; from marginal programs to expanding policies like parental leave and preschool. But progress, he argued, is not the same as momentum.  

The deeper question might be why breakthroughs are not happening faster. And here the conversation became provocative. Perhaps, Michael suggested, the field leans too heavily on long-term rational arguments: “We talk about children as the future,” he said. “But politics responds to the present.” If early childhood wants urgency, it may need to speak not only about future returns, but about the immediate value families experience today when support exists.  

From a policymaker’s perspective, Ivanka Shalapatova, former Minister of Labour and Social Policy in Bulgaria, offered a reality check that resonated deeply with many participants: Early childhood is everywhere — and nowhere. It sits across education, health, social protection, and family policy. This reflects the holistic nature of child development, but it also creates a structural paradox: “Early childhood becomes everyone’s priority, but no one’s responsibility.” Public finance systems rarely accommodate cross-sector investment. Political cycles reward quick wins. Yet child development unfolds quite quickly in the first years of life. The tension between political timelines and childhood timelines was quite insightful. Young children cannot wait for the next election cycle. 

Another contested thread running through the conversation questioned one of the field’s most cherished assumptions: that evidence convinces policymakers. 

Michel Vandenbroeck, Professor Emeritus at Ghent University offered a sobering reflection: “I have less faith in evidence than you might expect from a former academic.” Research matters, but policy rarely changes simply because science says it should. Policymakers often seek evidence that confirms positions they already hold. Real change, he argued, often comes from practice and civil society — from innovations people can see, visit, and experience. Evidence may inform policy. But demonstrated possibilities often move it. 

The politics of invisibility 

Lynette Okengo, Director at African Early Childhood Network, brought the conversation back to something both obvious and often overlooked: power.  

Early childhood has grown in evidence and policies, but not necessarily in political influence. Why? Because the people most affected by the issue — babies, caregivers, and often marginalized families — hold very little political power. “Our babies don’t vote,” she reminded us. And the consequences appear everywhere: underfunded systems, externally financed programs, and a workforce too often underpaid, invisible, or even expected to volunteer. “Who lives on T-shirts?” Lynette asked bluntly, referring to volunteers who receive symbolic compensation.  

If there is one measure of whether societies truly prioritize early childhood, she argued, it may be how they treat the workforce that surrounds the child. 

As the discussion shifted toward solutions, the focus turned inward. What if the field itself needs to change? Lynette called for simpler language: “We speak about ECD, ECED, nurturing care, foundational learning… maybe we should simply speak about children.”  

Michael Feigelson pushed even further, suggesting that the field sometimes behaves as if it needs permission to exist. “We almost act insecure,” he said. “But we have one of the most powerful issues that humanity has ever known.”  

In a world searching for meaning and hope, early childhood should not whisper. It should lead the story. 

Michel Vandenbroeck added another powerful dimension: the social value of early childhood services. Too often we talk about individual outcomes — cognitive development, school readiness, women’s employment. But early childhood settings are also something else: spaces where societies learn to live together. At a time of polarization, declining social cohesion, and threats to democracy, this collective dimension may be one of the field’s most important contributions. Yet it is rarely part of the narrative. 

Perhaps the most striking idea emerging from the discussion was this: breakthrough may not begin with policy at all. Policy follows culture more often than it leads it. 

If early childhood is to become non-negotiable, it may require something deeper: a cultural shift that recognizes caring for children not as a private responsibility, but as a collective social commitment. 

Joan Lombardi, Adjunct Professor, Stanford Center on Early Childhood and co-founder Georgetown Collaborative on Global Children's Issues, captured this beautifully in her closing reflections. Progress has been real, she reminded us — from the early preschool movements of the 1970s to today’s global frameworks and initiatives. But progress has also been uneven and slower than children’s lives allow. Which raises a final question. In times of disruption — and we certainly live in one — breakthroughs often become possible. So perhaps the real question is not whether early childhood will break through. 

It is whether we are ready to change the way we act, speak, and organize so that it does. 

It was an extremely rich and poignant conversation. And this is only a taster. In the coming weeks, we will share more highlights — ideas that may challenge, provoke, and take the collective reflection further, to action. For now, I encourage you to watch/listen to the full conversation and decide for yourself: 

What should the early childhood field stop doing, start doing, or fundamentally rethink to get prioritised? 

And I invite you to continue the conversation on our new LinkedIn Group.  

Because breakthroughs rarely arrive suddenly. They are built together.