Growing up in Scotland: early experiences of primary school

FOOTNOTES

1. The GUS sample is generated in two stages. The first stage randomly selects geographic areas or clusters, the second stage selects individuals within those clusters. The standard errors are adjusted to take account of the geographic clustering of the sample at the first stage.

2. As measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997)

3. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/10093528/2

4. This data is only available from parents of those children in the birth cohort who had started school by the time of their sweep 5 interview.

5. As may be expected, with such a small number attending independent schools it is not possible to robustly consider how the characteristics of these children vary from those attending state schools.

6. As opposed to the school's classification on these measures which may be different to that of the child's home address.

7. This figure is not the same as the proportion of P1 pupils who were actually in a composite class. This data is not available at an individual level in the GUS data. However, the full school level administrative dataset indicates that in the 2010-11 academic year, 12% of P1 pupils were in a composite class. It may be expected that this figure varies in a similar fashion according to area deprivation and urban-rural classification to the figure reported above.

8. The statistical analysis and approach used in this report represents one of many available techniques capable of exploring this data. Other analytical approaches may produce different results from those reported here. A description of the analysis is included in the technical appendix.

9. The regression output is included in the technical appendix

10. Note that data on number of classes and pupils, and whether any P1 classes were composite, have been calculated at an aggregate level for the child's school, not at the individual level referring to the actual class the child is in. See section 3.6.2 for more details.

11. Activities and events did not necessarily have to involve the cohort child.

12. This question was only asked at sweep 4, so data for some children, might refer to the early period of Primary 2.

13. 2006 SIMD quintiles for child cohort and 2009 for birth cohort

14. Those that started school in sweep 5 were only asked this question if they had ASN while those starting in sweep 6 were asked the support question before that on ASN. This led to some parents reporting additional support but no ASN. These cases are not included in this Table 8.2.

15. Note methodological differences - Birth cohort 6-month time frame versus child cohort 1 month. Birth cohort asked for all reasons that applied, Child cohort asked for main reason.

16. Data from child cohort using sweep 4 data only and only those reporting absence in a 1 month time frame.

17. http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners/

18. Note that the GUS data used here pre-dates this policy change.

19. Families in less deprived and rural areas are more likely to own a car than those in more deprived and/or urban areas.

20. Further details and the full regression results are available in the technical appendix.

21. As measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997)