Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: phase 4 report

7. Characteristics of ELC

To gather information on the characteristics of ELC settings, inspectors from the Care Inspectorate (acting as observers independent of their regulatory roles) conducted observations of 149 settings using the most recent version of the Infant / Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-3).

ITERS-3 was used for a number of reasons: it centres on the experience of the child in the setting; it allows for the effect of setting quality on child outcomes to be controlled for; and it is relatively easy to administer given that only one three-hour observation is required. The tool can also be used to determine if particular setting characteristics contribute to differential outcomes in children. Furthermore, ITERS-3 is designed for use in settings where most children are under 36 months and as such, it was deemed suitable for use with the eligible two-year-olds involved in Phase 4 of the SSELC.

It is important to note that these tools are not the only method of assessing setting quality in Scotland. Indeed, the Care Inspectorate ratings provide a broader measure of the quality of practice and policy within settings that have also been found to be related to children's outcomes in Scotland.^[33] Further, all ELC providers are required to demonstrate that they meet the National Standard for ELC Providers before they can access funding to deliver the funded hours, whether they are in the public, private or voluntary sectors. Care Inspectorate ratings form key quality criteria within the National Standard. Local authorities are responsible for assessing and monitoring compliance with the National Standard.

As with the Care Inspectorate inspection methodology, the setting observations focused on outcomes. However, the methodology differed in that the ITERS-3 tool was used to observe for three hours, with no consultation with setting staff and no professional dialogue or explicit feedback provided. This was because the observations were intended to be a snapshot to inform the study and control for variation in child outcome data, rather than serving as an assessment of an individual setting's quality. During the ITERS-3 observations, observers looked at the six domains specifically for two-year-olds. In contrast, during a formal inspection, Care Inspectorate inspectors consider a range of areas that impact on experiences for all children attending the setting, not just those in specific age groups. The key areas covered during a formal inspection are likely to include some or all of the domain areas but can also cover other aspects of the provision to evaluate the overall quality of the setting.

The ITERS-3 scale comprises 33 items across six different subscales: space and furnishings; personal care routines; language and books; activities; interaction, and programme structure. More details of the scale are included in Appendix C.

7.1 Background data on settings collected during observation

In addition to the main indicators, background data was collected during observations on the structure of the setting. This included: the number of children and staff present at the time of observation; whether there was a dedicated room for two-year-olds; and whether there was "freeflow" access to outdoor space.^[34]

More than half (56%) of the settings had a dedicated room for two-year-olds. On the day of observations, 32% had no more than five children of this age, while 31% had between six and eight two-year-olds, and the remaining 37% had nine or more. A third of settings (33%) had no more than eight children of all ages, 34% had between nine and 15, 19% had between 16 and 29, and 14% had 30 or more.

Almost all of the settings had access to outdoor space (99%), and this was free-flow in 56% of the settings.

7.2 ITERS data on ELC settings

Table 7.1 summarises scores on each of the ITERS-3 subscales from 1 to 7: 1 (inadequate), 3 (minimal), 5 (good), and 7 (excellent).

Base: All settings observed (Phase 4, unweighted)

Note: Settings' mean score for each subscale was categorised based on the highest score fully achieved e.g. if a setting scored 4.5 for the Space and Furnishings subscale, they would be categorised as '4 < 5' rather than rounding up to 5. This decision was made in consultation with academic colleagues and the Care Inspectorate.

Settings scored highest on the interaction subscale, with 78% of settings scoring 5 or above. Most settings also scored 5 or above on the programme structure (74%), the space and furnishings (72%) and the personal care routines (64%) subscales. It should be noted however, with a maximum possible score of 7 on each item, an average score of 5 indicates room for improvement on multiple items within the scale. On the activities subscale, no settings scored the maximum 7. Of the other scales, the highest proportion achieving the maximum - indicating "excellent" on all items - was 26% for programme structure.

Scores were weakest on the activities scale, with only 11% of settings scoring 5 or above and 34% scoring below 3. Meanwhile, close to half (45%) of the settings scored below 5 for languages and books.

A summary of the total scores is provided in Figure 7.1. None of the settings achieved a total score of 7. However, 43% scored five or above, with most of the settings scoring either between 4 < 5 or 5 < 6 (36% each). Only 5% of settings had a total score of below 3.

Base: All settings observed (Phase 4, unweighted)

Only top-level analysis of the ITERS-3 data has been conducted for this report. Future analysis will consider associations between setting and characteristics and child outcomes.