Early learning and childcare (ELC): provision for 1 and 2 year olds in Scotland

1. Introduction

1.1 Policy background

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 defined Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) as a service consisting of education and care of a kind which is suitable for children who are under school age, taking into consideration the importance of interactions and other experiences which support learning and development in a caring and nurturing setting. The Act set the requirement for education authorities to, among other requirements:

• ensure that the mandatory amount of ELC is available to each eligible preschool child in their area,
• consult representatives of parents and plan availability of ELC accordingly, and
• consider flexibility in how ELC services are made available to offer parents an appropriate degree of choice.

Finally, the Act made available up to 600 hours of funded childcare per year to all 3- and 4-year-olds and eligible 2-year-olds. From August 2021, the funded entitlement to ELC in Scotland increased from 600 to 1140 hours per year for all 3- and 4-year-olds and eligible 2-year-olds. Eligible 2-year-olds include children who are looked after by a local council, have been appointed a guardian, are in kinship care, or whose parents are care experienced or receive income support, tax credits, universal credit, job seekers allowance, state pension credit, severe disablement allowance, employment support allowance or incapacity benefit (Blueprint for 2020).

In the 2021 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government committed to extending funded ELC to all 1- and 2-year-olds, starting in this Parliament with those families who will benefit most. In the 2022 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government further committed to conducting research and engagement to inform the development of the new offer for 1- and 2-year-olds. That research and engagement includes this project on mapping current ELC provision for 1- and 2-year olds, as well as a separate literature review on the impact of ELC for younger children which is being conducted by Public Health Scotland.

1.2 Project aims

The aim of this report is to enable the Scottish Government to understand what provision presently exists in Scotland for 1- and 2-year-olds. The report aims to add to the evidence base needed to inform the development of the new offer by drawing on existing evidence and the expertise of key stakeholders.

The research presented in this report explores:

• the available provision for 1- and 2-year-olds across Scotland at both the national and local authority (LA) levels,
• where evidence of good practice exists that could potentially be scaled up, and
• any issues or challenges identified in the sector related to the current provision that could be addressed within the design of the new offer for 1- and 2-year-olds.

1.3 Research approach and methodology

The research was undertaken in two phases. The first phase focused on mapping ELC provision for 1- and 2-year-olds nationwide and identifying key gaps. The second phase explored in more detail the ELC provision in four LAs in Scotland, with the aim of understanding the demand for ELC services, differences in provision for the age group of interest (i.e., 1- and 2-year-olds), good practice examples, and key challenges in providing ELC services to this age group of children.

1.3.1 Phase 1: Mapping nationwide ELC provision for 1- and 2-year-olds

The first phase of the research included a desk-based review and analysis of a wide range of secondary data on ELC provision in Scotland, a focus group and two interviews with key stakeholders, and a short survey of representatives from the LAs in Scotland. Key information on the methodology used in each research activity and any limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings are discussed below.

Analysis of secondary data

To understand the ELC provision in Scotland, three secondary datasets were reviewed and analysed. One of the key data sources used was the Care Inspectorate Datastore (dated February 28, 2023). In addition to the publicly available data, the research used data that was provided directly from the Care Inspectorate (dated December 2021) that included additional information on types of ELC provision (i.e., whether a provider is a nursery, playgroup, child and family centre, etc.), whether each provider has places for 1- and 2-year-olds, and the number of ELC places in each LA for each age group of children (i.e., under 1, 1-year-old, 2-years-old, etc.).

Using the above data, the research included summary statistics on the number of providers and ELC places by type of ELC provision, age group of children, region in Scotland and LA. However, to produce additional analysis that could provide more insights, the analysis combined the sources described above with the following datasets:

• Estimates of the Population for the UK, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Office for National Statistics, mid-2021)
• Urban Rural Classification - Scotland (Scottish Government, 2020)
• Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks (Scottish Government, 2020)
• International Geographies/International Territorial Levels (Office for National Statistics)
• Data Zone Look Up (Scottish Government, 2011)

Although the above data sources provided valuable insights, certain limitations must be considered. Firstly, one significant limitation of the additional data provided by the Care Inspectorate is that there is no age-disaggregated data on childminders, so in many places in the report our data analysis is limited to information on formal group-based settings for 1- and 2-year-olds. This is a significant limitation, as a considerable amount of ELC for 1- and 2-year-olds is provided in childminder settings. Additionally, childminders are, according to stakeholders, a very suitable ELC provision type for younger children.

Additionally, while data on the total number of places for 1- and 2-year-olds in each LA were available, no information was identified on how many places are allocated to 1- and 2-year-olds within each individual provider. Consequently, the research could not determine the number of places for 1- and 2-year-olds within smaller geographic areas or calculate the average number of ELC places providers set aside for younger children. Finally, the data on ELC places per age group was only available for December 2021, creating a time lag of 1.5 years. Thus, the data do not provide information on changes in ELC places for 1- and 2-year-olds since December 2021.

Focus group and interviews

In parallel with the data analysis, key stakeholders from across the ELC sector and the Scottish Government were contacted and invited to a focus group or an interview. Representatives from the following organisations participated in the research:

• Relevant policy teams from the Scottish Government
• Care Inspectorate (CI)
• Scottish Childminding Association (SCMA)
• Early Years Scotland (EYS)
• Care and Learning Alliance (CALA)
• National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA)
• The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)
• Education Scotland
• Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES)

A focus group and two interviews were conducted in March 2023 that discussed current provision for 1- and 2-year-olds and the new ELC offer for that age group. Within these discussions, key gaps in provision, good practice examples, challenges specific to providing ELC to 1- and 2-year-olds, and challenges faced by providers, local government, and families in rural and remote areas in Scotland were discussed. The discussion guide followed is provided in Appendix 1. Once the focus group and the interviews were completed, a thematic analysis of what was discussed was undertaken to identify key themes that emerged, as well as the similarities and differences in views and perceptions across stakeholders within the same and different sectors.

LA survey

The final research activity of the project's first phase was a local authority survey. The survey was distributed to all LAs in Scotland on the 22nd of March 2023, remained open until the 12th of April 2023, and was completed by 26 LAs (out of the 32 in Scotland), a response rate of 81%. The survey captured topics similar to the focus group and interviews but aimed to capture the LAs' perspective, knowledge and expertise. More specifically, the survey covered topics related to the current ELC provision, provision for children with Additional Support Needs (ASN), demand for ELC services, and concerns and views related to the new offer, always focusing on the provision for 1- and 2-year-olds in each LA. The survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.

The survey included 15 closed-ended questions (excluding questions related to consent and participation in the next phase of the research) and five open-ended questions. The responses to the closed-ended questions were analysed using Excel to produce summary statistics. The responses to the open-ended questions were read in full and analysed using thematic analysis, identifying the common themes across LAs as well as themes that were raised only by LAs with specific characteristics (e.g., rural areas).

Although the survey achieved a high response rate, it should be taken into consideration that around 20% of LAs did not respond, and thus, their experiences are not captured. Additionally, the survey captures only the views of one representative from each LA. Consequently, additional information known to the council might exist and not be included in the responses. Finally, ELC provision not known to the council (e.g., community ELC provision) is also not included in the responses to this survey.

1.3.2 Phase 2: Case studies

The LA survey asked respondents whether they would be interested in further contributing to our research by participating in a more in-depth interview. Based on the responses to this question, the rest of the questionnaire, and the characteristics of each LA, four LAs were chosen to be studied further in the project's second phase. Those were the Scottish Borders, Moray, Fife and Glasgow. The LAs included as case studies were selected from the sample of those that responded to the survey. While LAs were chosen to balance size, rurality, and region of Scotland, it is not a representative sample and the experience of stakeholders in other LAs may be different. If LAs had examples of unique types of provision, or good practice, an effort was made to include them. While no island communities are included in the case studies, there is significant engagement ongoing with these LAs through other workstreams, including via the Scottish Government Rural and Islands policy team.

The research includes conducted 14 interviews in total, with 3-4 interviews conducted for each LA. Interviews were conducted with: a representative from the LA, a representative from the Care Inspectorate and 1-2 providers for each case study. The aim of the interviews was to understand in more depth the topics explored in Phase 1, identify any good practice examples that can be scaled up, and understand challenges and concerns specific to each area and areas with similar characteristics. The discussion guides for those interviews are provided in Appendix 2.

Additionally, a survey was administered to all providers whose contact information was identified through data provided within the Care Inspectorate Datastore and by the Scottish Childminding Association (SCMA) in the four LAs listed above. The survey included 8 questions in total (excluding questions asking for consent and participation in further research activities), consisting of mostly closed-ended questions. The survey sought to identify providers who were interested in being interviewed, identify additional types of provision specific to 1- and 2-year-olds, and capture the views of providers in terms of the challenges they anticipate from the new offer and what they think the new offer should incorporate to meet the needs of younger children. The survey was distributed on the 18th of May 2023, remained open until the 2nd of June 2023, and received 76 responses. Of these, 40 were from childminders, 29 were from nurseries, 9 from out of school care providers, and 7 from other types of ELC providers (some respondents reported that they provide more than one type of ELC). While the survey was open to providers serving both 1-and 2-year-olds and older children, the survey asked providers for their thoughts on caring for 1-and 2-year-olds specifically.

The case studies were primarily qualitative and involved a small sample of stakeholders, leading to a few methodological limitations. Firstly, the interviews did not capture all the different types of ELC provision in each LA. Consequently, there might be different experiences within the LAs studied that are not presented in our report. Additionally, the provider survey is not representative of the whole country since only providers within the selected LAs were contacted. Further, the survey does not represent all providers in each LA, as some types of provision were over-represented while others were under-represented, based on data on providers in the Care Inspectorate Datastore.

It should also be noted that while identifying good practice examples was one of the targets of this phase, only a few specific examples were identified by the stakeholders. This might be because of the small sample size of the research, because ELC provision for 1- and 2-year-olds is still limited and thus good practice examples are also limited, or because innovative provision models that can be characterised as good practice examples are not well known in their areas. On the other hand, the stakeholders who participated in the research discussed approaches and techniques that benefit younger children and their families based on their expertise. Those approaches are not necessarily only relevant to their LA but may be applicable nationwide.

Overall, the case studies provide interesting and applicable insights and suggestions provided by experts and key stakeholders. However, when interpreting the results, it should be taken into account that there might be additional experiences, good practice examples, challenges and views on the topics explored that are not captured in our report.