Early learning and childcare funding: Primary 1 deferral pilot evaluation

4. Parents' experiences of the new process

Summary

• Parents who read written communications from settings about the pilot generally felt they were clear and straightforward.
• There were, however, parents who did not recall reading any written communications or were unsure what they received was relevant to their child.
• Conversations with ELC staff were valued by parents, who felt their professional opinion and knowledge of their child was useful in deciding whether to defer their child. Little support from staff was needed with the deferral process itself.
• There were cases where parents were not contacted by staff (and did not recall any written communications), highlighting the need for a more consistent approach across all settings.
• A small number of parents were upset and/or shocked when staff raised the possibility of using the funding – highlighting the importance of a careful and sensitive approach to conversations with parents about the entitlement (particularly given the stigma around deferral which was more prevalent among those from more deprived areas).

This chapter will cover parents' experiences of finding out about the entitlement and the new deferral request process. It will examine how ELC settings informed parents about the change, and the type of support they offered. It will also explore parents' views on what worked well and what they felt could be improved.

Communicating with parents

The communication of the availability of the entitlement to parents is laid out in the logic model as an intended part of the process (see Appendix 5). This section looks at the extent to which this happened including whether parents were aware of the pilot; and what was most effective in terms of raising awareness and enabling understanding of the new entitlement.

Parents' awareness of, and attitudes towards, deferral generally

Before examining how the pilot was communicated, it is important to consider how familiar parents were with the idea of deferral more broadly, and what their views on it were. How much parents knew about how deferral works in Scotland prior to the pilot varied from no awareness to high levels of familiarity with the concept and recent policy developments. The latter included parents who worked in ELC or education and/or who had an interest in the subject more broadly. Pre-pilot, parents tended to associate deferral in Scotland more readily with children who were born in January and February, and not August-December born children.

Attitudes towards deferral as a concept varied among parents with some parents feeling as though deferral is about keeping children back because they are underperforming in some way. More positively, it could be viewed as an opportunity for more time to play. Although not a clearcut pattern, it appeared that parents with more negative views of deferral tended to live in more deprived areas. The impact of existing views on deferral is discussed further in Chapter 5.

A common phrase used by parents who felt deferral has negative connotations was "holding them back." Others said the idea was 'scary' to them because they thought it might mean there something wrong with their child, or that deferral of this age group was only for children with Additional Support Needs (ASN). ELC staff had experienced this viewpoint, describing it as something that parents found difficult to accept, worrying that their child was behind in their development or not as intelligent as others.

"I think there are some parents who see deferral as, kind of, 'Well, it means that my child's maybe not quite as smart,' or something like that. […] It's maybe a bit embarrassing or maybe …something that they don't want for their child. They want them to be ready for P1, they want them to be able to succeed in school. So…for some, admitting that they can't or that they aren't at that point can be hard for some families."

(ELC head)

A further negative connotation mentioned was the possible reaction of other children in the class, which tended to be based on what they remember from their own schooling.

"I remember being a child myself and, thinking back, there was that stigma of being deferred and, 'Oh, you got kept back a year.' […] I know what children can be like and they can maybe say things like, 'Oh, you got kept back a year because you're not clever'."

(Parent, did not defer)

Positive comments about deferral tended to come from those living in less deprived areas, although not exclusively. Phrases mentioned included "extra time", "opportunity" and "choice." Those who had the strongest positive views on deferral spoke about Scandinavian countries where children start formal schooling later and associated this with better educational outcomes. This group also tended to follow Upstart and Give Them Time on social media which are campaign groups seeking to increase the school start age.^[13] One parent felt that views are moving away from the stigma towards a more positive stance:

"There's still stigma lingering about what deferral used to be… only if you were not ready for school, the kid might have something extra in their brain so they needed the extra year. But, actually, the benefits are crazy, the stigma is going away… let them be young, let them have extra time of playing and developing at their own time. Building relationships with other children and adults."

(Parent, did defer)

Staff in both local authorities and settings were clearly aware of the different levels of familiarity and broad range of views on deferral, particularly the stigma around it in more deprived communities. They recognised that the subject needed to be approached carefully in both written communications and conversations with parents.

Parent communications

Awareness

This evaluation did not assess awareness levels across the eligible population. Instead, we spoke to parents who were aware of the pilot taking place. However, there are some indications that communications did not reach all parents; some parents had to be screened out of the research due to being unaware of the pilot and others, who did take part, were unaware until they approached ELC staff to discuss deferral.

What parents received

Parent communication activities undertaken by local authorities included updating the information on their websites and posting on social media. Settings sent out a range of written communications including letters (sent in children's bags or by email), emails, texts, leaflets, posters, notifications via the setting's app, and social media posts.

Emails and letters sent by settings were the main channels by which parents said they found out about the pilot. There were, however, parents who did not recall receiving written communications or were unsure. This may relate to broader issues such as the volume of emails parents receive from nursery and school, and how busy they are. The experiences of staff supported this:

"When I spoke to some of the parents initially they seemed to be surprised that their child was eligible for that additional year, even though we had sent out a letter and we'd included it in our swathe, and it went out as a text message. So, we had sent it most different ways, and the people that I spoke to still thought it was a surprise."

(ELC head)

Other ways in which parents became aware were through talking to other parents and by approaching ELC staff to let them know they were thinking about deferral:

"I can remember saying to a few people in the nursery queue waiting for pick-up about it and they didn't know about it. We definitely didn't get a letter home or anything like that... So, yes, I don't think people had that much awareness of it. There was a bit of confusion about it, I think."

(Parent, did defer)

There were also examples of parents who were unaware that their child's place would be funded through the pilot until after the deferral was confirmed.

Where parents had read written communications they generally felt the information was clear:

"Everything that I read I understood. I didn't need to find out any more or look for any further information. As far as I'm aware, I understood it all. It was all quite straightforward, I would say."

(Parent, did defer)

There were some issues raised, however, including: some parents being unclear of its relevance to them; use of jargon; and emails going into spam folders. That said, email was still considered better than letters in children's bags, which can easily go unseen.

Further suggestions for increasing the reach of communications included making information available in other languages; posters in ELC settings; and promoting it alongside P1 enrolment information.

Area for consideration:

Producing standard written communications for all settings to send to all eligible parents. Emphasising the age group that the entitlement is for (clarifying it is an expansion of the entitlement January-February born children have); and to speak to staff at staff at the child's setting in the first instance.

Parents tended to be more interested in the practical information they read about the process of how to defer, rather than feeling they needed to look for written information about the wider pros and cons of deferral. This ties in with how useful parents found conversations with ELC staff about the entitlement (making written information less of a priority, which is discussed further below). There were also parents who wanted more detail on what would be offered if they did decide to defer:

"'Would there be additional staff? Are lunches and things like that still covered and funded? And what they would do to further develop from where he was in that year, for an extra year, what would they do to bring him on, or bring him forward?' I asked all those questions, there was no information given about what to expect, I only know because I asked."

(Parent, did defer)

Area for consideration:

Include more information for parents on what an additional year in ELC would be like. This could cover hours, lunches, teaching and anything else might differ from their current year in the setting.

The Scottish Government and local authority websites were not key sources of information for parents (apart from for those who had a particular interest in deferral and/or the campaigns to raise the school start age). The Parent Club website was not referred to by any parent participants.

Verbal communications

Parents who first heard about the pilot verbally from ELC staff were generally positive about being told in this way and the way in which staff raised the subject. Conversations with ELC staff were seen as very useful (by all, not just those who first heard this way) to understand what the pilot meant for them, and to help them decide whether to defer. They were also well received by parents who initially had a negative view of deferral. There were some who described feeling more positive about deferral after having discussions with staff, covered in more detail in Chapter 5.

As indicated above, there were, however, parents who were shocked when staff raised the idea face-to-face (having not read about the pilot in advance), causing them to feel worried and upset that there was something wrong with their child.

Case study 1: Sara and Millie

Sara is 26 and works in the care sector. She has a daughter called Millie (born in December). She lives in Aberdeen with her partner, and both work full-time.

Sara was aware of deferral, but had negative views about it. She thought it would be only for children "really needing it" so she never imagined that her daughter could benefit from it. Sara had not seen any posters in the nursery or letters/emails about it the new entitlement. She remembered seeing something about it on social media but hadn't read about it in any detail.

One day, while dropping Millie off at nursery, a staff member mentioned the entitlement to Sara and explained that they could defer her daughter: "I just burst into tears […] I was like, 'I think I have failed her'."

On seeing her reaction, ELC staff offered to meet Sara later that day to speak more privately during a one-to-one meeting. The staff explained the entitlement and how they felt an additional year could help her daughter to gain the confidence to interact more with her peers. Sara felt well-informed as a result of her discussion with staff but would have liked to have a leaflet, an email, or a link to a website so she could share the information with her partner when discussing deferral at home.

Sara remembers that, although ELC staff advised them to defer, it was never imposed. She felt supported by ELC staff and thought that they had the best interests of her daughter in mind. Having deferred her daughter, Sara is grateful that ELC staff raised it with her and thinks that deferring was the best choice they could have made because it allowed her daughter to become more confident and make more friends: "I am 100% positive about deferring children now".

Research with staff highlighted that not all ELC practitioners felt clear on whether they should raise the subject of deferral with parents:

"I don't know if it is just stigma from the old way, [the idea] that it's something that we are not overly meant to suggest, it has to come from the parent. So, we are not meant to give a full opinion on it, is the way we've been told. If it is brought up, we can give the pros and cons, but aren't meant to say to parents, 'We think your child needs a deferral.' It needs to be a parent decision. We are waiting for them to sometimes approach us, but do they actually fully know that the option's there?"

(ELC practitioner)

This highlights the possibility that some parents will remain unaware of the entitlement, having not received/read written communications and potentially missing out on verbal ones too, depending on the approach taken by staff. Staff approaches to supporting parents will be examined further later in this chapter.

Messaging

Pilot leads had initial concerns about parents being confused by messages saying schools will be 'child-ready' whatever stage they are at, but also more children can now stay in funded ELC for longer. However, interviews with parents did not suggest this was an issue. It was also clear that, once parents knew about the pilot and had discussed it with staff, they did not view it as something to do just because the funding was there (an initial concern of pilot leads). This (along with modest increases in uptake) suggests the messages about the pilot worked in terms of explaining the rationale for the pilot – and not giving parents the impression they should make the request just because they can.

Area for consideration:

Clearer instructions/guidance for settings around communication to avoid some parents not receiving any official communications about the entitlement. This could ask all settings write to all eligible parents, and do a verbal follow up.

The new deferral process

The deferral request process was received very positively by parents. Forms were typically very short as parents no longer had to provide reasons or supporting information for deferral. ELC staff answered parents' questions and provided support with the process.

Whether they had to complete an online from, a paper based one, send an email to their local authority or just confirm verbally with their setting, they generally found the request process "easy", "straightforward' and quick to do:

"I just had to fill in a form to say that she was going to do an extra year in nursery, and that's as simple as it was, and just put in the hours that I wanted her to do, and that was it. It was really easy."

(Parent, did defer)

Other positive comments on the process were that a 'decision' was made quickly. Parents often used the terms 'decision' and 'application' and thought about the process as needing approval and sign off from the local authority even though they were guaranteed a funded place if they requested it.

While parents were generally satisfied with the new process, there were some who felt things could have been improved. Emails confirming spaces were not always received by parents, who said that would have helped make the process smoother.

Area for consideration:

Ensure parents receive an email confirming their child's place.

Other parents felt that the timings could have been improved (where they were informed about the funding late in the academic year). Staff also flagged this as a problem and one practitioner suggested May as a good time to ask parents to decide:

"There is a little bit of flexibility…you've got to make sure you've got that final decision. So, I think if they just moved it to May then… you're not feeling you're having to make a decision and parents, you know, rush that decision."

Area for consideration:

Review the timings of when deferral decisions need to be made, keeping in mind the need both for flexibility for parents and local authorities' requirements for planning teacher numbers (as mentioned in Chapter 2).

Further issues with the process mentioned were:

• confusion caused by an ELC form that asked parents for their top three choices of settings, which left one parent unsure about whether her child would have to move from her current nursery.
• asking parents to apply for a P1 space as well as a deferral, as this was seen as asking for the same information twice.
• online and offline methods should be made available, in case families are unable to make the request online (mentioned by head).

Area for consideration:

Whether the process can be simplified further by not requiring parents to: apply for a P1 space when deferring; or complete a form which asks for their top three choices of settings.

Support for parents

Parents needed little support with the deferral request process itself as written communications generally made the next steps clear. However, ELC staff played an important role in supporting parents in understanding what the entitlement meant for them and their child. Not all parents looked to settings for support around whether to take up the entitlement, as they felt able to decide themselves. Parents of children with ASN or possible developmental delays also received support from professionals such as health visitors and speech and language therapists. This section will primarily cover how support was delivered by ELC settings and what parents found most helpful.

Parents found staff approachable, supportive and able to answer questions regarding their child's progress and developmental needs, as well as deferral processes. Positive comments about conversations with staff included feeling that staff members knew their child well enough to help with the decision:

"The nursery were very supportive and, you know, you spend a lot of your time in work, they work with your kids, so they're the ones I trust."

(Parent, did not defer)

Staff demonstrated different understandings of the extent to which they could communicate their professional opinion on whether taking up the entitlement would be beneficial to a child. As mentioned in the Communications section above, there were practitioners who were unsure whether they could raise the subject of deferral with parents. For the most part, staff saw their role as providing supporting information if they felt deferral would be beneficial, but also emphasising that the decision lies with the parent:

"I do sometimes think we're not always going to agree and I would never be telling them that this is what I think and you should do what I think. But I also won't say I agree when I don't. And I'll just put all the reasons why we think she's ready or he's ready or they're ready and then listen to what they have to say, and tell them that in the end it is up to them."

(ELC practitioner)

There were parents who appreciated this position as non-prescriptive and "diplomatic":

"I had actually initially spoken to [the child]'s key worker at nursery and she was very diplomatic, I would say. She was saying, 'I can't be seen to obviously influence your decision.' but she did go through the pros and cons."

(Parent, did defer)

Others, however, found it frustrating that ELC practitioners took a "neutral" position on whether an additional year would be beneficial:

"It's as if they were scared to say we really think this […]. There wasn't a clear message of what their thoughts were. 'We do feel he would benefit but feel he'd be fine as well.' They're in a difficult position, they don't know what he would be like."

(Parent, did not defer)

This issue was mentioned by staff as a challenge, because there were times when they felt parents were asking them to make the decision for them:

"We have parents that say, 'Well, whatever you think. I'll go with you.' And I'm saying, 'No. No, thank you, this is on you. Here's the information, here's where we're at, you go away and have a think and come back and let us know where you're at'."

(ELC practitioner)

Area for consideration:

Provide training/resources for ELC practitioners to: ensure they are aware and feel confident raising the subject of the entitlement; and clarify their role in relation to parents' decisions.

On the whole, parents were happy with the support and information staff provided. Those who were not satisfied tended to disagree with the advice offered. Chapter 5 will examine the impact for parents and children, including when parents felt that the advice from staff had not benefited their child.

Staff reflections on supporting parents

The significant value of conversations with parents was emphasised by staff. The pilot was viewed as enabling more of these conversations and as taking the pressure off parents, because the funding is guaranteed. It had also brought about more informal meetings, and avoided parents' first meetings about deferral being a virtual 'Team around the child', which staff said was not ideal for putting parents at ease. They were also considered to facilitate child-centred decision making (Chapter 5). Staff described a range of approaches to these conversations which they felt best supported parents and child-centred decision making:

• informing parents that both ELC settings and P1 follow a play-based approach to learning.
• approaching the topic in an open way – for example "What are you thinking about Primary 1?"
• mentioning the impacts of Covid-19 lockdowns as a factor – to prevent parents with a negative view of deferral feeling like their child is especially "behind" the others.
• explaining that, if a child is deferred it doesn't necessarily mean they would not have coped with P1, it is more about the benefits they might gain.
• being clear on the reasons for deferral, particularly as there may be more "borderline" cases under the new approach.
• not directly telling parents what to do (as discussed above), but laying out what their work with the child suggests, and that ultimately the decision lies with them.
• making time and private space for what can be an emotional conversation.

Interviews with parents showed a shift in some parents' attitudes after they had received support from ELC staff and deferred their child:

"I used to be, kind of, against them [deferrals]. […] I now see that it's a case of… if you defer them they're going to be thriving instead of surviving through school."

(Parent, did defer)

Area for consideration:

See list above of approaches to maximise the benefits of conversations with parents. Consider including in resources for all ELC staff.