Early learning and childcare funding: Primary 1 deferral pilot evaluation

6. Conclusions and lessons for roll-out

Conclusions

As highlighted in previous chapters, the accounts of local authority pilot leads, ELC heads and staff and parents indicate the pilot has been implemented broadly as intended. Providing funding for an additional year in ELC to children with August-December birthdays did not present any major challenges for the local authorities involved.

Uptake data on August-December deferrals, showed there have been some increases since the entitlement was introduced. Larger increases were seen in Year 2 pilot areas. However, it is difficult to disentangle how much increases were driven by the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic (rather than the pilot), particularly in Year 1 pilot areas which began offering the entitlement in 2020. There appeared to be no clear trend showing the pilot had resulted in an increase in January-February deferrals.

The increases in uptake did not cause widespread capacity issues for the pilot areas. On the whole, local authorities were able to provide the additional spaces required, without it creating problems. That said, concerns were raised by pilot leads and ELC staff that this could change in the future if deferral uptake increases and/or other policies put pressure on ELC spaces. It should also be kept in mind that the ten pilot local authorities may not be representative of all 32 local authorities across Scotland in terms of resource, capacity and pre-pilot deferral policies. This is a limitation of the evaluation (as mentioned in Chapter 1) and may mean that the national roll-out could be more challenging for some local authorities for reasons that have not come to light in this study.

While eligible parents were usually informed about the entitlement and supported in their decision making, there were cases where this did not happen. Suggestions of ways to improve this aspect of delivery are included below. Similarly, while ELC staff felt confident in their role in supporting parents in deciding whether to use the funding, there were also some who were less clear on how to approach this (again, suggestions around this for the roll-out are included below). The process of taking up the funding was generally perceived as straightforward by parents, and even more so by ELC staff, who were able to compare with the pre-pilot process.

As the entitlement is rolled out nationally, it is also intended that it will lead to a more consistent approach to deferral across Scotland. While it is too early to comment fully on this outcome, given the small number of authorities involved to date, the early signs are encouraging. The variation in approaches taken between pilot authorities appears to have been reduced from pre-pilot times with little variation being described between authorities. Any variation that did exist appeared to be 'teething problems' which were administrative in nature (e.g. timing of communications) rather than any fundamental differences in approach. It is likely that, as the entitlement is bedded-in across Scotland, the approaches in different local authorities will become largely consistent, and certainly more so than previously.

The new entitlement appears to support child-centred decision making by creating a process that centres on conversations between families and ELC staff, rather than an application and a final decision made by a panel of professionals. These conversations made parents feel well supported in their decision making. It was also clear that the entitlement increased choice, by raising awareness of the option to have an additional year funded and for those who would not have been able to fund another year of ELC themselves. Overall, the evaluation indicates that the funding reduced stress and concern for parents. The main factors that contributed to this were: the simplified process with no requirement to 'make a case' or wait for approval; knowing the funding is guaranteed; support received from ELC staff (when parents agreed with their suggestion). This point also relates to choice and parents feeling like they had made the best choice for their child.

As the pilot is rolled out, it is intended that deferral rates will become more uniform across Scotland (including by SIMD). This is in part linked to consistent processes but is also affected by cultural factors. As noted, deferral has historically been more common in more affluent areas with the stigma of being 'held back' being considered more of a concern in areas of multiple deprivation. While it might take longer for these cultural influences to change, there are promising indications that other, more child-centred, factors were influencing decisions in more deprived areas. There were examples where parents (particularly in the most deprived areas) felt negatively about deferral but once they discussed with staff and did defer, they felt they had made the best choice for their child and this influenced their overall views on deferral away from the stigma. ELC staff also commented on the stigma around deferral beginning to lessen and were very aware of the issues, reporting being mindful of the language used to discuss deferral with parents. Given one influencing factor in parents' decisions around deferral is the experience of others who have deferred, as more parents defer this may reduce the stigma over time.

Lessons for roll-out

The section below pulls together the 'areas for consideration' which are highlighted in the chapters above. These are suggestions which could further improve the delivery of the entitlement in pilot areas and in other local authorities during the national roll-out.

Communications for parents

• 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 not for January-February born children);
  • and to speak to staff at your child's setting in the first instance.
• 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.
• ensure parents get an email confirming their child's place, or are aware that they will not receive one.
• move away from use of the word 'deferral' in both written and verbal communications, instead using more positive language.
• 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.
• 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.

Training and development for ELC staff

• provide training/resources for ELC practitioners to: ensure they are aware and feel confident raising the subject of deferral; and clarify their role in relation to parents' decision on deferral (see page 41 for list of approaches aimed at maximising the benefits of conversations with parents).
• support settings to provide training, resources and new development opportunities for staff on pedagogical approaches for older children.
• support ELC staff to provide reassurance to parents around children's friendships and to facilitate new friendships where possible.

Deferral process

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

Capacity

• continue to review capacity issues across ELC settings – as the new entitlement is rolled out alongside other policies which require more spaces.

Further issues to consider in the future include how staff approaches to conversations with parents may need to change as we move out of the pandemic. By 2025, four and five year olds will not have experienced the Covid-19 lockdowns and therefore staff will need to use other ways to broach the subject with parents.

Monitoring uptake data trends over next few years may provide a clearer picture of how far the entitlement had driven the increases in August-December deferral, versus the influence of the pandemic. Increasing the data gathered by local authorities on children who defer would also aid future evaluation of the expanded entitlement. This would ideally include monitoring: ASN, disabilities, households on low-income benefits, ethnic group, and SIMD quintile.

Data collection and analysis areas for consideration were:

• support local authorities to ensure they are able to gather data about household and child characteristics.
• track deferral rates by local authority taking into account their overall rank according to SIMD, as the roll-out progresses.