Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: phase 4 report

8. Summary and conclusions

Background to the Study

This report was based on findings from Phase 4 of the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare, which focused on two-year-old children accessing funded ELC. This is the first of the post-expansion phases of the study, with children now receiving up to 1140 hours of funded ELC each year.

The data reflect the experiences of a particular group of children and their families: those accessing funded ELC at age two. They are not representative of all children accessing ELC at that age, many of whom do not receive funded placements. Most children accessing funded ELC at age two come from households that meet the statutory eligibility criteria, which themselves are a proxy for socio-economic disadvantage.

The data were collected for a number of purposes, including to provide a nationally representative picture of both child and parent outcomes associated with this cohort of eligible two-year-olds. The same children will be followed up towards the end of 2024, to see how things have changed for them and their families following a year of funded ELC. Over the same period as covered by all six phases of the SSELC, many families will have experienced difficulties caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Subsequent reports will attempt to tease out the effects of the expansion from other impacts upon these families.

A new element to the study was introduced in this phase – a survey of setting heads. This was intended to help fill gaps in our knowledge about the services provided to families by ELC settings, as well as giving setting heads the opportunity to feedback on their experiences of the expansion. The findings from this have provided valuable insights which will feed into the overall evaluation of the expansion of funded ELC in Scotland, and will be used to inform Scottish Government policy in an ongoing way.

Characteristics of the Phase 4 sample

The data collected from parents confirm that the families of children accessing funded ELC at age two are not typical of all families. Around half of the households were among those in the lowest equivalised income decile. Four in ten lived in areas identified as among the most deprived 20% according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Each of these factors are known to be key determinants of poorer child outcomes.

The vast majority of parent respondents were women, with four in five indicating they were the child's main carer and most of the rest that caring was shared equally with someone else in the household. More than half were single parent households.

Use of ELC

Nearly all of the parents reported using just the one provider of formal ELC. Most also used only the funded hours. A small number paid for additional hours of ELC, although this only increased the average hours attended by one. Around a third of the families did not appear to take all of their entitlement, attending for fewer than 22 hours per week.

Around one in five parents used another form of childcare in addition to the setting where they received funded ELC. In most cases this was informal, the most common arrangement being with grandparents. This use of additional childcare was more common among those with higher incomes and those living in less-deprived areas, potentially because of the need to cover work hours. A much broader range of childcare, mostly informal, was used before the child reached the age of two and became eligible for funded ELC. Again, the largest proportion was grandparents.

Most parents engaged with the ELC setting, although the extent of that engagement varied. Most parents had discussed their child's progress with setting staff. Just over a third said they had received advice or information about how to support their child's speech, language and communication development, and the same proportion mentioned talking to someone about how to support their child's learning at home. Some parents also mentioned receiving other forms of support for the family more generally, which can be crucial for low income or potentially vulnerable households. This included help with food or clothing, wider family support, such as for relationships, employability, help with welfare rights or benefits. The percentages receiving these types of support were much lower than the proportion of settings reported by their heads to offer them.

Parents could generally see the advantages of having a child in ELC. The large majority thought it was good for the child in many ways, including their interactions with other children and adults, the boost to their independence / confidence, their educational development, and simply that they enjoy it. Around three-quarters also mentioned it being good for parents in that it enabled them to work. Two-thirds mentioned no disadvantages of having a child in ELC, although some mentioned ELC hours not being long enough to allow time to work, or that children may be unhappy or pick up bad habits/behaviour.

Child health and development

The SSELC was designed to examine a number of different children's outcomes, including social, emotional and behavioural development, cognitive and language development. It also asked about physical and mental health and wellbeing, as well as a number of risk factors known to be associated with these.

While the majority of parents had no concerns, parental concerns about how a child spoke or what they understood were higher for boys than for girls, and higher in the most deprived areas than in other areas. Some of those whose parents had concerns were receiving support for speech and language development at the funded ELC setting, although half were not.

The main measures of child development included in the SSELC were the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). These are commonly used assessment tools both in Scotland and internationally.

The ASQ comprises five domains, covering communication, gross motor skills, fine motor skills, problem solving and personal-social. On each of these domains, fewer than half the children were assessed as "on schedule". This is lower than would be expected for a nationally representative sample of two-year-olds. On four of the five domains (the exception being the gross motor skills domain), girls were more likely to be on schedule than boys. On the communication, fine motor skills and personal-social domains, boys living in deprived areas were much less likely to be on schedule than girls, or boys in other areas.

Comparing parental concerns about communication with scores on the ASQ communication domain, it is clear that many parents are aware of issues that are picked up by these assessments. However, there are also a number of children whose parents are not concerned, but the ASQ assessment suggests there is an issue with communication.

The SDQ also comprises five domains: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and prosocial behaviour. The first four of these can be combined to form a total difficulties score. On the first two of these domains, the proportion deemed "close to average" was similar to or slightly below what might be expected from a nationally representative population of two-year-olds. On the other three domains the proportion close to average was much lower. For the total difficulties score, 40% were in the close to average range, around half of what may be expected for the whole population. With the exception of the emotional symptoms domain, girls tended to exhibit fewer difficulties than boys. As with the ASQ, it was boys in deprived areas who were the most likely to have difficulties.

Parent and family outcomes

Supporting parents to take up or maintain work, education or training was one of the intended outcomes of the expansion of ELC. However, it was recognised that many parents of eligible two-year-olds would need time and support after their children started to receive funded ELC to reach the point of being able to find employment. The surveys of parents of eligible two-year-olds took place within the first few months of the children starting their funded placement.

Around two in five of respondents to the parent survey (who were mostly women) were in employment, with the majority of these working fewer than 30 hours a week (31% of all respondents), and only 9% working full-time. Survey respondents' partners (mostly men) were much more likely to be in full-time employment (51%), with a further 13% in part-time employment. Small numbers of parents mentioned that having their child in ELC had allowed them to increase their hours at work, while others had entered or re-entered education.

Parents living in deprived areas were less likely than those in other areas to be in work, education or training. This was more noticeable for two-parent households, although figures for single parent households in all areas were lower.

Respondents who were in employment worked for an average of 20.5 hours a week. This was higher in two-parent households where childcare might be shared between parents, than in single parent households.

The hours when a child is in funded ELC have allowed parents to do many other things, beyond work and education. Four in five reported being able to think about what they may do in the future, while two-thirds said they have been feeling less stressed. A third had been able to take steps that may lead to work at some point in the future, by studying or improving work-related skills.

Levels of wellbeing across the adult population have taken a downturn in recent years, with the Covid-19 pandemic and resultant lockdowns and the cost of living crisis having a major part to play in this. The latest available figures show that population wellbeing levels have not returned to pre-pandemic levels.^[35] Untangling the effects of this from the effects of the expansion of ELC is not simple. Subsequent reports will aim to tackle this issue more comprehensively, to get a clearer picture of the effect of the expansion on parental wellbeing.

Most parents reported coping well as parents for much of the time, but there were a small number who said that they were not. For the benefit of both them and their children, it is important that nurseries are able to offer the kind of support mentioned earlier to these families. Nearly a third said they did not get enough or did not get any support with childcare from friends and family. These families are likely to rely more heavily on formal ELC provision than other households do.

In general, girls were more likely than boys to do frequent learning activities at home with their parents, be that looking at books, drawing, or reciting nursery rhymes. Again there were some, both boys and girls, who never looked at a book at home.

Views of setting managers

The setting heads questionnaire was a new element of the study for Phase 4. It showed that settings were providing a lot of support to all families, rather than it being targeted at eligible two-year-olds. Support for parenting concerns, support to aid the child's learning at home, and support for speech and language development or for other additional support needs were routinely offered in nearly all settings. Other types of support were also offered, albeit less commonly. These included provision of food or clothing, advice on benefits, and the opportunities to learn a new skill or develop skills to help find employment.

The expansion of ELC had clearly affected the services provided to families in many settings, with more than half of setting heads agreeing that as a result of the expansion they were now providing a broader range of services, and nearly half saying they spent more time working with families and that they worked more closely with families. The survey also showed that the cost of living crisis had affected the services provided in much the same ways.

With the expansion came the expectation that settings would provide food for children that met nutritional guidance. Almost all (98%) of settings provided lunch and the majority also provided a morning or afternoon snack. The main challenge regarding this was the high cost of food, mentioned by two in five setting heads, although nearly all setting heads did not believe there was any deterioration in the quality of food provided following the expansion.

Many settings had made changes as a result of the expansion, with nearly three-quarters taking on extra staff. A substantial minority had lengthened their opening hours. Nearly a third had had to increase fees for unfunded children and one in five had cut expenditure, for example on play materials. The main challenges in meeting the demands of the expansion, mentioned by more than half the setting heads, were recruiting new staff and accommodating children with additional support needs.

In summary, some parents reported they have found time to take up employment, even in the short period since their child started funded ELC. The development of many children within this group of eligible two-year-olds was assessed as needing further monitoring or assessment at the outset of funded ELC, and some parents may struggle to provide them with support at home. However the expansion has enabled many nurseries to improve the services they can offer families, and it is important to make sure that these services reach all the families that need them.