Admissions policies sit at the centre of how an Early Learning and Care (ELC) or School Age Childcare (SAC) service defines itself in practice. While most services articulate values of inclusion and equality, the reality on the ground has become increasingly complex. Services are operating within staffing shortages, increasing levels of additional need, limited access to timely external supports, and rising expectations from families and regulators alike.
As a result, some services have begun introducing restrictive admissions measures, either formally or informally, particularly in relation to children perceived as having higher levels of additional or emerging need. This trend requires careful examination. Exclusionary practice presents significant ethical, legal and professional risks, yet services also have legitimate responsibilities to ensure the safety, wellbeing and sustainability of their environments for children and staff.
An effective admissions policy must therefore balance inclusion with operational realism.
The Purpose of an Admissions Policy
An admissions policy is not simply an administrative document outlining how places are allocated. It serves several core functions:
- Demonstrating compliance with equality and non-discrimination obligations.
- Setting transparent expectations for families at the point of enrolment.
- Ensuring that placements are appropriate to the service’s resources and environment.
- Protecting the wellbeing of children, staff and the wider group.
- Providing a structured framework for decision-making where needs change over time.
Under the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016, registered providers are responsible for ensuring that children’s care needs can be met safely within the service. Admissions decisions therefore must consider supervision, ratios, staff competence, physical environment, and available supports.
The Emerging Challenge: Restrictive Admissions Practices
Across the sector, there is increasing anecdotal evidence of services:
- Refusing enrolments where a child has a diagnosed additional need.
- Requesting assessments prior to offering a place.
- Limiting intake where children may require one-to-one support.
- Informally discouraging enrolment by highlighting capacity constraints.
While often driven by genuine operational pressure rather than intent to exclude, such practices can create significant risk. Admissions decisions based solely on perceived need may conflict with equality legislation and undermine inclusive practice principles embedded within Aistear and Síolta.
More importantly, exclusion does not address the underlying issue services feeling unsupported and overwhelmed in meeting increasingly complex needs.
Inclusion Does Not Mean Unlimited Capacity
This discussion is not about whether children with additional needs should attend early years services, they absolutely should. It is about how services can remain inclusive in a way that is safe, sustainable and meaningful for children and staff.
A key misunderstanding within the sector is the belief that inclusion requires a service to meet all needs at all times regardless of resources. This is neither sustainable nor aligned with regulatory expectations.
Inclusion means:
- Making reasonable adjustments where possible.
- Working collaboratively with families and external supports.
- Creating environments where children can participate meaningfully.
- Recognising when additional supports are required to make inclusion successful.
It does not mean operating beyond safe supervision levels or expecting educators to absorb significant additional responsibilities without training, planning or support.
Where a child’s needs exceed what can reasonably be supported within the current staffing model or environment, the issue is not the child — it is the mismatch between need and available resources. Admissions policies should acknowledge this reality clearly and transparently.
The Role of the AIM Programme
The Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) provides an essential framework for supporting inclusion in ECCE settings. However, AIM is often misunderstood.
AIM support:
- Is not guaranteed at enrolment.
- Is not immediate.
- Does not replace the responsibility of the core staff team.
- Is intended to support participation, not provide full-time individual care.
Services should clearly outline within admissions documentation how AIM operates, including the possibility of delays or periods where support may not be available due to illness, staffing gaps or application timelines. Setting these expectations early helps avoid conflict later and ensures families understand the shared responsibility involved.
Safeguarding Staff Wellbeing and Preventing Burnout
An admissions policy must also recognise staff wellbeing as a safeguarding issue. Burnout in early years environments has direct consequences for:
- Quality of interactions with children.
- Consistency of care.
- Staff retention.
- Overall service stability.
When educators are consistently placed in situations where they feel unable to meet children’s needs safely or effectively, stress and moral injury can occur. Over time, this leads to increased sickness absence, turnover, and reduced quality of provision.
Practical measures services can incorporate include:
- Clear maximum capacity for children requiring enhanced support within a room.
- Environmental risk assessment prior to enrolment.
- Graduated settling-in periods with review points.
- Ongoing observation and review where needs emerge post-admission.
- Explicit acknowledgement that placements may need adjustment if safety or wellbeing becomes compromised.
This approach supports inclusion while recognising the limits of human capacity.
What Inclusive Admissions Looks Like in Practice
Inclusive admissions policies are not defined by accepting every enrolment without consideration of capacity. Instead, they are defined by transparency, planning and a commitment to making participation meaningful for each child within the realities of the service environment.
In practice, inclusive admissions begin long before a child starts attending. Services should create opportunities for open and honest conversations with parents at enrolment stage, focusing on the child’s strengths, interests, routines and any supports that may assist successful participation. These conversations should be seen as collaborative planning to ensure that the placement works for the child, the staff team and the wider group.
A strong admissions process also recognises that needs can emerge or change over time. Policies should therefore include clear review mechanisms, allowing services and families to reflect together on how a placement is progressing. Where challenges arise, the first response should always be to consider reasonable adjustments; changes to routine, environmental supports, additional observation, or engagement with inclusion supports such as the INCO role and the Access and Inclusion Model where appropriate.
Inclusive practice also requires acknowledgement of limits. There may be periods where additional supports are not yet in place, where staffing levels temporarily reduce due to illness or leave, or where the environment requires adaptation before a child can safely participate. Addressing these realities openly protects trust between services and families and prevents situations where staff feel unsupported or children experience environments that are not meeting their needs effectively.
Importantly, inclusive admissions do not rely on individual educators absorbing additional responsibility without support. Sustainable inclusion recognises that staff wellbeing is directly linked to children’s wellbeing. When educators feel confident, supported and appropriately resourced, they are far better positioned to create responsive, nurturing and inclusive environments for all children.
An admissions policy that reflects these principles does not lower expectations around inclusion; rather, it strengthens it by ensuring that inclusion is planned, resourced and achievable in practice.
Moving Towards Ethical and Sustainable Inclusion
Rather than refusing enrolments outright, services can strengthen inclusive admissions practice by:
- Developing robust pre-enrolment conversations with parents focused on strengths, interests and support needs.
- Clearly outlining what supports are currently available within the service.
- Establishing review processes where additional needs emerge.
- Engaging INCO roles effectively in planning transitions and support strategies.
- Maintaining strong links with external professionals and early intervention services.
Transparency is key. Families are more likely to engage constructively when expectations are clear from the outset.
Conclusion
Admissions policies should not become tools of exclusion, but neither should they ignore the operational realities facing early years services. Sustainable inclusion requires honesty about capacity, proactive planning, and recognition that staff wellbeing is fundamental to quality provision.
The sector does not benefit when services feel forced to choose between inclusion and sustainability. Well-constructed admissions policies allow services to hold both positions simultaneously welcoming children with diverse needs while ensuring that environments remain safe, supportive and achievable for everyone within them.
When inclusion is approached as a shared responsibility between services, families and support systems, it becomes not only possible, but sustainable.
Share this article
-Policy-in-Early-Years-Services---website-thumb.jpg)
