Early learning and childcare funding: Primary 1 deferral pilot evaluation

5. Impacts for parents and children

Summary

• The automatic entitlement for an additional funded year in ELC has largely removed, or at least reduced, financial barriers to deferral. Some parents did not feel they could have afforded to defer their child without the funding, and may not have applied to defer them without this guarantee.
• Parental choice has increased by: enabling parents who were not aware that deferring was an option for their child to consider it; and by increasing the choice available for parents who wanted to defer their child but may not have for financial reasons, or because they felt their application would be unsuccessful.
• The evidence indicates that the pilot has increased child-centred decision making:
  • parents reported concentrating on what they felt was best for their child, rather than any practical considerations, with ELC staff in agreement that this reflected their experience;
  • whether their child was 'ready' (including: emotionally, socially, academically, physically) for school consistently emerged as the main factor informing decisions;
  • the main influences on parents' decisions were others who were well positioned to comment on what would be best for the child – ELC staff in particular;
  • ELC staff felt that the automatic funding, and the associated changes in processes, had led to an increase in child-centred decision making.
• Remaining barriers to child-centred decision making included: stigma around deferral (although there was a suggestion this was lessening); peer group considerations (wanting children to remain with friends or be separated from another child); and the timing of deferral decisions (considered to be too early).
• Parents were typically not well informed about what P1 would be like in the school their child would be going to. Greater awareness of this could also aid child-centred decision making.
• Having the guarantee of an additional funded year has helped to reduce parental stress by simplifying the deferral process/removing the need to gather supporting evidence for deferral and by giving parents full control of the decision.
• Parents were generally happy with decision they had made for their child, making the process of starting school feel less stressful.

The previous chapters have provided evidence that the pilot processes (outputs) have largely been undertaken as intended. This section considers whether these outputs have led to the intended impact outcomes for parents and children, detailed in the logic model (Appendix 5). These are: financial barrier of additional year of ELC removed or reduced; increased parental choice; increased child-centred decision making; and reduced stress for parents around their child starting school. There is crossover between the outcomes but each is now covered in turn, drawing on evidence from parents, as well as ELC heads and staff, on the extent to which it has been achieved.

Financial barrier of additional year of ELC removed or reduced

The automatic funding of an additional year of ELC for August-December born children is the main change in practice from pre-pilot. As intended, it has largely been successful in removing financial considerations from decision making on deferral. While financial barriers may not, in all cases, be completely removed, for example if wraparound ELC care is more expensive than wraparound school-aged childcare, they have certainly been reduced:

"If you are working 40 or 40+ hours a week that is only half your nursery bill that is getting paid [by the funding], whereas if you were sending them to school, they would be in 9 to 3 and then afterschool is not that expensive so it wouldn't be half as much money. […] They need to look realistically at how much it is still costing parents to defer their children."

(Parent, did defer)

The impact of the reduction of financial barriers varied. On the one hand were parents who would have financed an additional year had their child not been successful in receiving an additional funded year under the pre-pilot system. Indeed, one parent in the pilot who had applied to defer was unaware until late in the process that they would receive a funded place. For these parents, the funding was welcomed but did not change their decisions:

"I think it made it easier but … I think I still would have deferred her, just because I think she's better starting a little bit older, and a little bit more confident, and a little bit more ready to learn."

(Parent, did defer)

Other parents felt they would not have been able to afford an additional funded year. While some parents in this situation may have been successful in applying for funding for their child to defer, others may not have been aware of the option; may not have felt they had a strong enough case to apply; or have been unsuccessful in their deferral application. Parents were grateful that the funding had given them the option:

"I am very grateful for the extra funding for this extra year. Without this funding, I would not have been able to afford the fees to the nursery. We just went through a pandemic, and the budget is tight everywhere, even under such circumstances they gave my child another year's funding. And we are on the lowest rung in society… and they haven't really forgotten us."

(Parent, did defer, translated)

Increased parental choice

Where parents were aware of the pilot (varying levels of awareness are discussed in Chapter 3), it has served to increase their choice around deferral. It has done this in two main ways. Firstly, by enabling parents who were not aware that deferring was an option for their child to consider it; and secondly by increasing the choices available for parents who wanted to defer their child but may not have felt it was possible for financial reasons, or because they felt their application would not be successful. This increased level of choice facilitated decisions being made for other reasons (discussed below under child-centred decision making):

"I didn't think we had a strong case. Speaking amongst peer groups and from working within the school, [local authority] were quite notoriously bad at giving you a deferral. […] It didn't even cross my mind that I should even apply, I didn't think him being an October birthday would qualify at all. And there wasn't a developmental cause, there was no diagnosis, he's not autistic, he's not dyslexic, there was no reason that I would have felt that I would have a strong case to request a deferral so, no, I was fully expecting to send him to school."

(Parent, did defer)

"I had heard through parents, even parents who were teachers, that they had genuine concerns and that they were quite often knocked back and that's why I said [I felt] relief because I didn't want to have a fight on my hands to defer school."

(Parent, did defer)

While parents were positive on the whole about having an increased level of choice, having more options available could make the decision difficult for parents who had not have previously considered deferring their child:

"All the parents, all of us, we'd just be outside in the car park, we'd be like 'oh my gosh, we can't decide, what if we do the wrong thing?' When you don't have the option it's easier, that is what you are doing. I think for two or three months it was all we talked about."

(Parent, did not defer)

ELC staff were positive about the increased choice the pilot had afforded parents and felt it would open up the option of deferral to a greater number of parents. They also commented on a difference in parents' openness to consider all the options, noting that they had begun to raise the possibility of deferral with parents when they started nursery, which they felt helped:

"I feel our parents are a lot more open to the conversations. They've taken more time to actually consider their options. I definitely think it's a positive…

…even when children first start nursery, 'Do you know their birthday falls on this time of the year? Do you know when it comes to time to go to school, do you know you can always consider taking them an extra year at nursery or sending them to school?' They're always aware of that and it's not something that we just spring on them."

(ELC practitioners)

Increased child-centred decision making

The evidence indicates that the pilot has increased child-centred decision making. It was clear that parents were concentrating on what they felt was best for their child, rather than any practical (including financial) considerations, and whether their child was ready for school consistently emerged as the main factor informing decisions. Furthermore, the main influences on parents' decisions were others who were well positioned to comment on what would be best for the child – ELC staff in particular but also other professionals involved with the child (e.g. speech and language therapists) and wider family members, especially those who had a link to education.

Furthermore, as noted in Chapter 3, staff described the conversations they had with parents as being very much about the needs of the child rather than any practical considerations.

ELC staff, who were able to make comparisons with before the pilot, felt that the automatic funding, and the associated changes in processes, had led to an increase in child-centred decision making:

"This year has all been about the child. I can't say for years to come but this year has been fantastic and the parents have been very open and they have already seen the positive benefits for their children."

(ELC practitioner)

"It makes the process easier because it involves less people. It involves less agency and it makes it much more about the dialogue between the setting and the family, and it actually really does help make it very much about the needs of that individual child as opposed to all the kind of machine processes that goes on around about what deferral used to sometimes involve."

(ELC head)

To provide further understanding of the extent to which decisions were child-centred, the factors informing parents' decisions are now covered in turn including, where relevant, the input others had around each.

Main factors informing decisions

Child's readiness for P1

As noted above, parents consistently spoke about whether they felt their child was 'ready' for school or not. There were several elements to this 'readiness' including: emotional, social, academic and physical. For example, parents spoke about whether their child was emotionally mature enough, would be able to cope in a more structured setting, was confident enough, knew the alphabet or could write their name:

"I just thought if she went to P1 she would just be a shadow, like, she wouldn't blossom".

(Parent, did defer)

One parent also spoke about their child not being toilet trained. While these were particular considerations for parents of children with ASN or developmental delays (in some cases attributed, at least in part, to the Covid-19 pandemic), they were not exclusive to this group. For parents of children with ASN, however, their child's additional needs meant that they had typically been considering deferral before the introduction of the pilot. Their child's ASN tended to be the key factor in their decision:

"Well, his speech has been delayed, so that was definitely one. Probably his level of maturity and that would have been the two main things. But we were very sure for a long time that that's what we were going to do. There wasn't a point really where we were thinking, 'He'll be going to school when he is 4.5.' […] Those were the things we considered and they were agreed by everyone.

(Parent, did defer)

Parents typically valued the opinions of ELC staff on their child's readiness for P1, putting trust in their opinion. The opinions of wider family members who knew the child well were also sought, particularly in cases where they had an education background:

"It was really talking with the nursery that helped me make the decision because they know my child better than my friends do … they work with your kids so they're the ones I trust. […] I guess I did speak with my family […] I go to my mother-in law and ask her opinion and she used to work with children, she's like 'Is (child) ready?' 'Yes'. So that really helped as well."

(Parent, did not defer)

While decisions were typically based on what was considered best for the child, parents did not tend to involve their children in the decision making, feeling they were too young. Instead, they explained the decision to their child, if they were being deferred.

Case study 2: Karina and Max

Karina lives in a small town in a rural part of Scotland with her husband James and their son Max (age 5). She works full time as a teacher and James works part time.

Before learning about the new entitlement, Karina did not know much about deferral in Scotland, but she had heard years ago that there was a strict application process. She was not thinking about deferral for Max, whose birthday is in November. A member of staff from nursery raised the idea during a parents' evening and explained about the funding:

"They had said to me, 'Oh, obviously Max likes to play outside, socially he's got a nice group of friends, but then they said that they felt like he wasn't really wanting to pick up a pencil, or do any of the numeracy or literacy stuff', he was very much just wanting to play the whole time, and they had then said from there about there's an opportunity to defer, it might just give him that time just to look a bit more into literacy and numeracy and that kind of stuff."

Karina and James were surprised by the suggestion and initially felt quite panicked because they knew it was two weeks until the P1 enrolment form was due to be submitted. Karina spoke to staff about feeling unsure about what to do and was invited into the nursery for a meeting. She said this helped her understand how an additional year in ELC could benefit Max, reassured her that he wouldn't be bored at nursery if he did stay for an extra year and that they would support him in forming new friendships. She also asked friends who were P1 teachers for their views and they had a positive take on the benefits of deferral for autumn born children.

James and other family members were initially less keen on the idea of Max taking up the entitlement, and some asked "what's wrong with him?" However, once Karina explained that it would give more time for him to practise and experience things, James and other family members supported her decision. Although they discussed it, James was happy to let Karina make the final decision, given her background in education.

Karina felt the process of requesting deferral could have been easier because she had to complete two online form (for P1 and the ELC space) and upload his birth certificate twice. Karina said without the funding they would not have deferred as they would not have been able to afford to fund an extra year themselves. She was very happy Max had the opportunity of a funded space for the extra year:

"Sometimes some of my friends have said, 'Do you regret it? Do you find it a benefit? How do you feel it?', and I just said, 'No', I don't regret it one bit, I think it's one of the best things that we've done. And I know it's still early, but he's just so much more keen, and is enjoying everything so much more."

Parents' opinions of whether their child was ready for P1 were also influenced by their older children's recent experiences of starting school, particularly when they felt they would have benefitted from deferring.

The experience of ELC heads and staff reflected the accounts of parents. They noted that much of their conversations with parents are on this topic, with parents keen to hear their views:

"I think the line that I probably hear most often from parents when they're really supportive of it or wanting it, is that they feel that their child's not ready for school yet. So, whether it's developmentally or emotionally, they're just not ready for school."

(ELC head)

"Where we are at the moment with our families, they do really listen to us and take on board what we're saying as feedback. I know a lot of the parents have come in with an expectation of their child doing X and then left doing Y, purely because they've sat with us and they've had the conversation. They know we've gone through everything and we're looking at … what suits the needs of your child best."

(ELC practitioner)

There was a perception that ELC staff, as a profession, were listened to more than they had been in the past, perhaps due to the fact children are in nursery for a greater number of hours than previously and staff really get to know them.

More exceptionally, there were reports of parents choosing to defer their child because the entitlement enabled them to do so rather than because they (or ELC staff) felt that the child would benefit from being deferred:

"That transition and that start in P1 was the best thing for that child in everybody's professional judgement, but because they were at the end of August, the parent was now able to say, 'No, I want them to have another year in early years,' and there was no comeback for that, because they were able to say, 'He's entitled,' and that was where the conversation ultimately ended. I think there will be single cases where it isn't always perhaps in the best interests of the child to defer."

(ELC head)

As touched on above, one factor felt to limit child-centred decision making was the timing of decisions. Parents noted feeling rushed in their decisions and, in some cases, reconsidering their decision as it got closer to the time their child was due to start school and changing their mind on whether their child was ready. They did not always feel it was possible to change their decision.

"It just felt like I did have to rush my decision because it frees up a place, which wasn't the best. It was just, kind of, 'You have to make a decision basically, because that will then free up his space,' which isn't nice to hear."

(Parent, did not defer)

Stigma

Existing perceptions of deferral as a concept also have the potential to aid or hinder child-centred decision making. As noted in Chapter 4, evidence from both professionals and parents highlighted that there is some stigma attached to deferral, particularly among parents from more deprived areas.

There were indications, however, from both staff and parents to suggest that this stigma may be lessening:

"We've had a parent who's had two children with us previously that we had suggested that they maybe have an additional year with us. However, she was very much, 'No, they're going to school.' We now have her third child with us, and early on those conversations have started and she is looking to give him an additional year with us."

(ELC practitioner)

While the extent to which this can be directly attributed to the pilot is unclear, as noted in Chapter 4, there were parents who had changed their mind and taken up the entitlement after discussing it with staff.

Both parents and ELC staff also reflected on the word 'deferral' specifically, suggesting that, if the concept was framed more positively, this could help with any associated stigma:

"Sometimes when I hear the word 'deferral', it makes me feel negative so I associate it with negative connotations…you're deferring them because they're not meeting goals, or they're maybe not achieving […] instead of using the word 'deferral' maybe a more positive way to swing it would be appropriate."

(Parent, did not defer)

"I think for our parents there was still a bit of stigma attached to being held back. So, we've had to change the terminology so when we're chatting about it – we talk about an additional year as opposed to deferred."

(ELC practitioner)

Area for consideration:

Move away from use of the word 'deferral' in both written and verbal communications, instead using more positive language.

The following section covers factors that appeared to influence decision making. However, there was not a clear sense of whether the pilot itself shaped the extent to which these factors drove decisions. They have been included here as they are helpful in understanding decisions around deferral generally, and because these factors may become more important as more children become eligible for the ELC funding.

Peer group influences

Considerations around children going to school with their friends could also interfere with child-centred decision making.

Although not typically the main influence on their decisions, parents described factoring in their child's friendships. Where friends were all starting P1, they raised concerns about their child being separated from them if they chose to take up the funding for an additional year. As well as their child not seeing their friends as much, parents gave thought to their child's feelings around the reasons their friends were going to school and they were not:

"My biggest concern about not sending him to school was his peers, and his friends group, that he would miss them, but I just had to keep telling myself that he will make other friends, he's only four. We're a small town, so he still sees his friends."

(Parent, did defer)

"I didn't want him to see all his friends starting school and for him to feel like, 'Oh, I've been kept back. Why do they all start school and I'm not allowed to start school? […] Is there something wrong with me that I'm not starting school with my friends?' There was that side of it as well that gave me the push not to defer."

(Parent, did not defer)

In some cases, parents were also thinking about their own friendships they had built up over time. An example was given of ELC staff being able to help with this concern and facilitate new friendships:

"I was quite worried because, all my mum friends, their wee ones were going to P1. So that was quite daunting. I was thinking, 'Oh my Gosh, who's going to be my pal, now?'. That seems quite sad but it was quite a big thing for me, too. The nursery were quite good at pointing out to my husband some of the parents of some of the kids that [child] played with, so he could ask them for play dates and stuff, and then we kind of got into another wee friendship group."

(Parent, did defer)

Staff concurred and described instances where they had seen peer group considerations override those of what was otherwise best for the individual child:

"A reason a parent wouldn't [defer] sometimes was because, in their head, this child was going to school with so and so's child. Because we're a small community they know mums of them, so they want them to be in the same primary class. So, that would more outweigh whether their child was ready or not sometimes, which was a shame, but obviously it is their decision."

(ELC practitioner)

They had also recounted parents who specifically did not want their child to go through school with another child and were basing their decision on that:

"We've also had those conversations about they don't want to go to school with a certain person, or we've got cousins at the moment that they're thinking about deferring one and not the other. So we've been trying to have those deeper conversations with the parents and looking at things like our trackers in literacy and numeracy … to try and help support decisions."

(ELC practitioner)

While staff did not indicate that the pilot had any direct influence on the extent to which parents took peer group issues into account, it is worth being mindful of their potential influence as more children become eligible for an additional funded year.

Area for consideration:

Support ELC staff to provide reassurance to parents around children's friendships and to facilitate new friendships where possible.

The suitability of the P1/ELC settings to meet their child's needs

There was variation in the extent to which parents took into account the specific nursery or P1 setting or approach when deciding whether an additional funded year would best meet their child's needs.

Although there has been a move towards P1 pedagogy becoming more play-based over recent years, parents did not typically cite this as a specific reason not to defer. A lack of awareness may be one element of this, with parents feeling like they did not receive a great deal of information from their ELC setting or school on the extent to which P1 would be play-based.

Parents who decided not to defer, however, did seem to be more likely to have given thought to the benefits and drawbacks of the particular ELC or P1 environment their child would be in, and to seek out information on the P1 approach at their school.

Parents whose decisions were influenced by the specific settings had different views on which would be better for their child. Considerations were around the size of the setting (some felt nursery was too big and school would be better and vice versa) and staff ratios, with nursery being viewed as preferable in this respect.

Even in cases where parents did factor in the fact that P1 would be play-based, this did not always make it any easier to make a child-centred decision. They did not always know whether this would mean that their child would, in fact, benefit from starting P1. Staff described discussions with parents in this situation:

"One of our parents wanted their child to excel in Primary 1 and not come out just doing 'all right', thinking more along the lines of formal schooling. So, when I'd explained, 'actually there's lots of time to play in Primary 1 as well, they're looking at play-based pedagogy', that kind of helped. I may have confused them more than anything because they're thinking, 'Okay, I was thinking my child was going in there to sit with a jotter' and actually that's not what's going to happen. Perhaps, maybe my child will be okay moving into Primary 1."

(ELC practitioner)

Parents could see room for improvement in this regard, suggesting it would be helpful to see for themselves what P1 is like in their child's school before making their decision:

"My understanding was that P1 was a lot more play-focused now but after doing a visit and seeing a literacy workshop, it is actually a lot more than I thought it would be. I thought it was going to be a lot more playful but … they're starting to put words together now, which is quite a lot further ahead than I thought they would be at this stage, which, again, worries me a little bit because I'm, like, 'Oh, is he ready for that?' I just thought it would be a lot more play in it."

(Parent, did not defer)

Area for consideration:

Provide parents with more information about what P1 is like in their school earlier in the preschool year, perhaps offering a visit, to further support them to make an informed choice.

Long-term considerations

In considering whether deferral was in the best interests of their child, there were parents who considered the long-term implications as well as the more immediate ones. There were perceived pros and cons which, in some cases, reflected parents' own experiences of school.

On the one hand was a view that being the one of the eldest in the year would mean their child would be more mature when sitting exams and potentially going to university:

"And I was even thinking much, much further into the future, if we didn't defer, if he so chose to go off and go to university, things like that, he would potentially be 17 when he starts university, by the time he finished high school, or [if we deferred] he would be 18, almost 19, by the time he starts university, and can do all the fun things, freshers week, things like that."

(Parent, did defer)

On the other hand, there was some awareness deferred children could leave school at 16, having not sat any formal exams. However, this was not something parents gave a great deal of weight to, given it was so far in the future:

"So, in my daughter's case…she could leave school before her exams because she is 16, and that's probably the only negative is that you don't have that barrier to keep them in. […] that is such a long way off, and if she wants to leave before she has sat her exams, it is something, obviously, I think every parent will discourage, but you don't know what kind of child your child is going to be."

(Parent, did defer)

Parents also reflected on how being the oldest or youngest in the year had affected them, with some of those who were younger feeling like they had struggled to keep up throughout their schooling:

"I then stepped back and thought about myself going through school, and it was just a case of completely surviving. I was at that age where I could have been kept back, but my parents took me in when I was four, and it completely impacted my whole life. I feel like, if I had that extra year of that maturity, I might have paid more attention to school… instead of just struggling and just trying to catch up when everyone else in the class seems to be able to do what you can't do."

(Parent, did defer)

However, as noted above, parents had also been aware of the negative impact of children being bullied for being 'held back' when they were at school.

Practical considerations

Practical considerations (i.e. basing decisions on which option would best fit work or childcare arrangements) did not emerge as an important factor in decisions. While there were parents who discussed practical issues, they were able to work around them. ELC heads and staff noted that, while they had experienced some parents making decisions on this basis, it wasn't as much of an issue since the implementation of 1,140 hours has meant that nursery and school days are a similar length:

"Because of the expansion of the hours in ELC, if you were going to defer the year before they would only be in 9:00 until 12:00 [and they might have chosen not to defer for that reason]. So, knowing that actually, they would be in there until three o'clock, just like school anyway, it made the decision more about what the child needed, rather than what the family situation was like for childcare and financial."

(ELC head)

Reduced stress for parents around their child starting school

A further intended outcome of the entitlement to an additional year of funded ELC was to reduce stress for parents around the start of their child's schooling. Evidence from the evaluation suggests that it has been successful in doing this, and that there are two main elements to this.

Firstly, and as noted in Chapter 4, the process for requesting deferral were considered straightforward. Staff, in particular, contrasted this to previous processes in their authorities which involved making a case, pulling together supporting evidence and waiting for a decision. Parents described relief at not having to go through these processes:

"I actually didn't think it would be that difficult for us to defer him because we had the backing of Speech and Language, and from the nursery already. But there's always that, like, 'what if?' So, yes, it was a relief, an absolute relief, to know he was eligible for it."

(Parent, did defer)

Secondly, and relatedly, parents had control over whether or not their child would go to school, relieving worry of their child having to go to school when they didn't consider them 'ready'. Furthermore, they knew in good time and did not have the pressure of trying to make sure their child was 'ready' for school should their deferral application be unsuccessful.

For the most part, parents felt that they had made the right decision for their child, making the experience of them starting school more positive and less stressful:

"No, I've no second thoughts, and obviously now that she is in nursery again, I'm still completely glad I made that decision. I fully think next year she will be properly ready for school […], she will be a lot more ready without having that sort of fear of going across to the big school with all the big boys and girls."

(Parent, did defer)

"It's been a positive experience. As I say, I didn't know what to expect but, from what I've seen, it's been positive and I'm glad we sent him when we did because he is enjoying it. He might be tired, but what kid isn't tired."

(Parent, did defer)

More exceptionally, there were parents who felt that they had made the wrong decision for their child, which had caused them stress. They had typically followed the advice of the nursery staff and felt that, on reflection, it hadn't been the right choice for their child:

"I felt really disappointed. I mean, I know my own child. Like, fair enough, I'm not with her when she's in nursery, but I had a few issues with the staff at her nursery not really listening to what I had to say about my daughter. So, I just felt like I was pressured into doing it anyway. […] To this day, she still goes on about wanting to go to school."

(Parent, did defer)