New Light on Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland: Evidence from the 2004 survey of the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70)

Chapter 5 Early education performance and school environment

Cognitive and educational achievement assessment

Previous research has shown that early measures of cognitive development and educational attainment are closely related to performance in the adult literacy and numeracy assessments (Bynner and Steedman, 1995; Parsons and Bynner, 1998). Many assessments were undertaken by the children at age 5 and 10. We explored performance in all of the assessments and found the same pattern of results was replicated across the adult skills groups. Adults with the poorest grasp of literacy or numeracy had the lowest average scores in childhood, adults with SCQF Level 5 or higher the highest average scores in childhood. We report here the assessments showing the biggest differences in performance scores.

Age 5

By examining the results of performance in tests as early as age 5, the age the vast majority of children in the UK start their formal education, it was possible to see if adults with a poor grasp of literacy or numeracy had struggled at the very first stage of their formal education. As most children at age 5 were not readers (see reports by their mothers later in this section) the most salient measures we have at age 5 are to do with language development, the English Picture Vocabulary Test ( EPVT) and visual-motor co-ordination, the Copying Designs test ²³. The age of cohort members at the time they completed these tests varied between 4 years 11 months and 5 years 11 months, however average age was identical across adult literacy and numeracy groups (5 years 1 month). The range of scores in the two tests varied, so for easier comparison these were rescaled to both fall within the range 0-10. Figure 5.1 shows that performance in the Copying Designs test differentiated most across adult skills groups. But men and women with the poorest literacy and numeracy at age 34 also had the lowest performance scores in both of these assessments at age 5; men and women with SCQF Level 5 or higher skills the highest performance scores.

Figure 5.1: average scores in cognitive assessments at age 5 by grasp of literacy and numeracy at age 34

Age 10

Assessments at age 10 are a way of summarising individual achievement at primary school prior to the big move up to secondary school. We look at performance in the two assessments most closely related to adult literacy and numeracy performance: the Edinburgh Reading Test and the Friendly Maths Test²⁴. Figure 5.2 shows that once again performance in both assessments was lowest for adults with the poorest grasp of literacy and highest for adults with SCQF Level 5 or higher numeracy, but that the 'gap' in performance between groups had increased between age 5 and 10. This highlights that the earlier difficulties are identified and intervention measures are put in place, the more likely that literacy and numeracy difficulties in adulthood can be prevented, or at least minimised.

Figure 5.2: average scores in assessments at age 10 by grasp of literacy and numeracy at age 34

Identification of difficulties

Questions of learning or educational 'difficulties' have a strong presence in cohort studies, with Chapter 3 detailing questions on self reported reading, writing and number difficulties being included in the most recent survey. Back in earlier surveys questions were put to parents, teachers and the cohort member themselves.

What did parents think of their child's reading, writing and grasp of numbers?

Early identification of literacy and numeracy difficulties, together with early help and assistance from both parents and teachers can be critical for the child acquiring the foundations of learning. If difficulties are not detected, they can be compounded over time. Before completing a reading test at age 5 ²⁵, cohort members' mothers were asked if their child could read at all. In BCS70 overall, 33% reported their child could not read at all and a further 18% that their child 'could recognise a few letters'. However, among the cohort members in Scotland in 2004, a huge 73% were reported by their mother as 'not being able to read at all' with a further 15% only able to 'recognise a few letters'. However, 'not being able to read at all' was reported most by parents of those who grew up to have SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy (83%).

In the interview at age 10, the mother or father figure was asked if they thought their son or daughter had 'no difficulties', 'some difficulties' or 'great difficulties' with reading, writing or maths. Figure 5.3 shows that nearly half of cohort members who had been assessed with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy skills at age 34 had been thought by their parents to have 'some' or 'great' difficulties with reading by a parent, but this meant that nearly half had parents who did not think they had any problems at all - which would be very unlikely to be the case. More than twice as many adults with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy were also thought by their parents to have 'great difficulty' or 'some difficulty' with writing and maths at age 10 in comparison with those who went on to have SCQF Level 5 or higher literacy skills (30% to 11% writing, 52% to 21% maths). By the time cohort members reached 16, no more than 1 in 10 mothers of those who grew up to have SCQF Access Level literacy thought their child currently had difficulties with reading, with an additional 1 in 10 reporting their child had had difficulties learning to read.

Around 1 in 4 parents of cohort members with SCQF Access Level 2 numeracy also reported that their child had 'some' or 'great' difficulty with maths at age 10, and 1 in 4 some or great difficulty with reading or writing. Although many parents of children who did not develop a basic competency in reading or numbers did identify these difficulties at age 10, half of these parents did not. If parents don't think a child has a problem then the onus is on their teacher to identify and address the problem.

Figure 5.3: parents who reported their child had 'great' or 'some' difficulty with reading wring or maths at age 10 by grasp of literacy or numeracy at age 34

a) Literacy

a) Numeracy

Teachers view of child's ability at age 10

The teachers of the children when they were age 10 were asked to say whether the child received any therapeutic or special help when they were at school. 88% of all children received no special help at all and 12% were either in a remedial class or received some kind of remedial help. Although remedial help had been received by more adults with the poorest literacy or numeracy, the vast majority had not been identified as needing any additional help. Figure 5.4 shows that 28% of adults with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy and 21% of adults with SCQF Access Level 2 numeracy had received occasional or regular remedial help for their reading development, around 1 in 10 in both skills groups had received occasional or regular remedial help for their mathematics development, at age 10. This compared with 4% of adults with SCQF Level 5 literacy or numeracy having received remedial help with reading, and no more than 2% remedial mathematics help, at age 10.

Figure 5.4: cohort member receiving remedial reading or mathematics help at school at 10 by grasp of literacy or numeracy

Although not a direct measure of reading and/or difficulties with numbers, teachers were also asked to rate the children's general knowledge. Figure 5.5 shows the vast differences that emerged by adult skills groups. Teachers of more than 1 in 5 cohort members with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy and 1 in 8 with SCQF Access Level 2 numeracy thought they had 'very limited' general knowledge. Nearly 1 in 2 with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy and 1 in 8 with SCQF Access Level 2 numeracy had 'below average' general knowledge. No adults with SCQF Level 5 numeracy had been thought to have a 'very limited' general knowledge at age 10, just 7% 'below average'. More than 2 in 3 teachers of adults with the poorest literacy correctly identified, if not a learning difficulty, at least a limitation in wider learning experiences. It was the more specific needs of the children - help with reading or numbers - that teachers were less able to correctly identify.

Figure 5.5: teachers reporting cohort members with a 'very limited' or 'below average' general knowledge at age 10 by their grasp of literacy or numeracy at age 34

What did the cohort member think of their own skills?

Although cohort members completed various educational and medical assessments since their birth in 1970, at age 10 they also answered a short questionnaire. This included questions on their personality, behaviour, self-esteem and on how 'well' or 'not so well' they thought they were doing in a number of subjects at school. Figure 5.6 shows that around 4 in 10 of all children reported they did 'not so well' in writing, with only small differences being recorded across groups. However, cohort members with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy or SCQF Access Level 2 numeracy did have some insight into their poor grasp of literacy and numeracy as they were by far the most likely to report they did 'not so well' in reading, spelling or maths. At age 10, round 1 in 2 adults with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy thought they did 'not so well' in reading, spelling or maths compared with 1 in 2 adults with SCQF Level 5 or higher literacy for reading and less than 1 in 3 for spelling and maths. Differences between groups at age 34 were most pronounced in the percentages reporting they did 'not so well' in maths when they were age 10 (66% SCQF Access Level 2, 21% SCQF Level 5).

Figure 5.6 Cohort members who thought they did 'not so well' in reading, spelling and maths when they were 10 by their grasp of literacy or numeracy at age 34

a) Literacy

a) Numeracy

School factors

The majority of the measures on aspects of school life that might influence the development of a child's literacy and numeracy were gained at age 10, but we do know about any pre-school experience they might have had.

Attendance at pre-school

Cohort members with the poorest literacy were by far the least likely to have had some kind of pre-school experience such as a play group, nursery, etc, but particularly less likely to have had any pre-school experience before they were four years old. Figure 5.7 shows that compared to cohort members who developed SCQF Level 5 or higher literacy skills, less than half of cohort members with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy had any pre-school experience (47% to 81%) and just 1 in 7 had experience before they were 4 years old (14% to 55%). Differences were less extreme but still apparent between adult numeracy groups.

Figure 5.7: pre-school experience by cohort members grasp of literacy and numeracy at age 34

Type of school at age 10

At age 10, 91% of all cohort members went to a (government) maintained school as opposed to 9% in the private sector. There were no differences across adult numeracy skills groups, though 10% more children with the poorest literacy went to a maintained school in comparison with those with SCQF Level 5 or higher skills (98% to 88%). However, overall the data collected from schools revealed relatively little association between school characteristics and the acquisition of basic literacy and numeracy. The style of teaching approaches employed in the classroom, such as open or traditional teaching, didactic or exploratory, planned lessons, etc, did not differ between adult skills groups, and in a regular week all children spent an average of 4.6 hours developing reading skills and 5.4 hours on maths and numberwork. Average class size was 28 with, if anything, adults who had the poorest skills being in smaller classes at age 10: 25 for adults with SCQF Access Level 2/3 literacy and 26 for adults with SCQF Access Level 2 numeracy. Overall academic ability of all children in the different schools also did not differ, with similar proportions being rated by the head teacher with 'above' or 'below' average ability. However, what did differ across adult skills groups were the occupations of the fathers of children in the school. In comparison with adults with SCQF Level 5 skills, Figure 5.8 shows that adults with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy were more likely to have gone to a school with a higher proportion of children whose fathers worked in semi-skilled manual work (45% to 30%). Differences were less pronounced between numeracy groups. However, the difference in socio-economic intake of the schools cohort members went to at age 10 is further reflected by the higher proportion of children in schools where adults with the poorest literacy or numeracy went to, coming from 'council estate' or 'closely packed, multiple-occupied houses' catchment areas.

Figure 5.8: difference in student population in cohort members school at 10 by grasp of literacy or numeracy

Summary of early education performance and school environment

Cohort members with the poorest grasp of literacy or numeracy were less likely to have had formal pre-school experiences (47% of cohort members with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy compared with 81% of cohort members with SCQF Level 5 or higher literacy), and as early as age 5 they had performed less well in cognitive assessments, falling further behind by age 10, as revealed by scores in the reading and maths assessments. Although half of cohort members with poor skills had been identified as such by their parents and identified themselves as having had poor skills in childhood (a far cry from the small percentages in adulthood), it still meant that the needs of half of them remained invisible. Teachers were even less likely to recognise these difficulties, with relatively few cohort members having received help with reading or understanding of numbers when at school (highest at just 28% for those with SCQF Access Level 2 or 3 literacy). School intake reflected the poorer socio-economic background and local area of cohort members with the poorest grasp of skills in adulthood. But other characteristics of the school, including its teaching characteristics, did not differ across adult skills groups. What seems to be critical is what the child brings with them into the classroom acquired from their family background.