Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: Three-year-olds (Phase 3) Report - Updated 2021

Summary and conclusions

This report was based on data from Phase 3 of the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare, the final phase of baseline data collection. Phase 3 involved two groups of children: the first comprised children aged three who had participated at Phase 1 when they were eligible for receipt of 600 hours of funded ELC as a two-year-old; the second was a representative sample of all three-year-old children eligible for receipt of and accessing 600 hours of funded ELC in Scotland. The two cohorts of children were analysed separately. 

The results from Phase 3 will act as a baseline for assessing the impact of expanded ELC provision on children through comparison with data collected in later phases of the evaluation. This report is slightly more complicated than the reports published for Phase 1 and Phase 2 as it includes a longitudinal element whereby we have data for the same group of children at the beginning of their funded ELC placement as an eligible two-year-old and one year later, when they were aged three. However, it remains intentionally descriptive in nature – summarising the data collected and identifying some basic relationships between variables. It has not attempted to provide a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between use of funded ELC and child or parent outcomes. While some use of more complex multivariable analysis has been made within this report, the majority of the analysis is simple – examining the relationship between two variables at a time. As such, the well documented and often powerful influence of socio-economic background on outcomes and experiences has not consistently been controlled for and some of the relationships described may be attributed to this effect. As a result, findings should be interpreted with caution. Despite this caveat, the data nevertheless provide an important view of the characteristics, experiences and outcomes of parents and children receiving 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare. 

The cohort of children who took part at Phase 1 (the "Eligible 2s") was not intended to be representative of the population of 2-year-olds eligible for funder ELC in Scotland. The Phase 1 report describes how this group of children was selected from ELC settings within a limited set of local authorities who had agreed to participate from the beginning of the study. While attempts were made to contact all the families who took part at Phase 1, some could not be contacted or chose not to participate again. More than half of the children in this group were from single parent families. The parents often had low levels of education and were on low incomes. The second cohort of children (the "Comparator 3s") were representative of all three-year-olds receiving 600 hours of funded ELC across Scotland. In terms of household composition, income, education and ethnicity, characteristics of this cohort were as expected for a representative sample of children accessing funded ELC. For example, 84% of the children were from two-parent households, incomes were equally spread throughout the deciles, nearly half of respondents had a degree and 95% were white. 

A quarter of the families in the Eligible 2s cohort, and half of the Comparator 3s used another provider of childcare alongside their ELC setting with grandparents being the main additional provider in the majority of cases. Decisions on the use of childcare appeared to be driven by income, with working parents particularly likely to require such extra childcare. 

Among the Eligible 2s, following a year at nursery, on four of the five ASQ domains there were increases in the proportion of children whose development was deemed to be 'on schedule'. Similarly, on four of the five SDQ domains, plus the total difficulties score, there were increases in the proportion of children assessed as having a 'close to average' score. While this can be viewed as positive, a certain amount of caution must be applied. For the SDQ, the same questionnaire was used at both age two and age three, so the improvement could be down to normal development. For the ASQ, the questionnaires were age specific, but even then we cannot rule out potential biases for this particular cohort, either in the question wording, or because setting staff have got to know children better after a year. Each of these may have lead to higher proportions being reported as on schedule at age three. So, while there appears to be progress, it is important to remember that Phase 3 is part of the baseline, and the key objective will be to assess whether the progress is greater after a year of 1140 hours of ELC once the expansion is complete.

The figures for the whole cohort hide the fact that for some children outcomes were better after a year of nursery, but for others they were worse. The majority of those who were on schedule or close to average at Phase 1 were in the same situation at Phase 3. However, a significant minority of children were no longer on schedule with their development. This highlights the importance of regular monitoring of children's development throughout the pre-school years, so that problems are picked up early.

At Phase 1, observations of settings were conducted by Care Inspectorate staff, acting for this study rather than in their official capacity as Care Inspectors, to assess the quality of settings on a range of measures. The rating of settings did not appear to be associated with child outcomes at Phase 3. There could be many reasons for this, either related to what was being measured, or because different types of families prioritise different things when choosing an ELC setting. Further analysis is required to examine this data more completely.

Regression analysis was used to identify the key drivers of ASQ and SDQ scores at Phase 3 among those for whom parent and keyworker questionnaires had been completed at Phase 1. In both models, scores at Phase 1 were seen to be the main driver, although a lot of variation in outcomes could not be explained by the models. This implies that children who were doing well at age two tended to remain ahead, and those who were behind tended to remain behind, although this is not true for all children, nor does it necessarily have to be. 

Other drivers identified by the models included being a girl and doing frequent home learning activities. Boys fared worse than girls on four of the five ASQ domains, a trend which is commonly found in research into children's development. The exception to this was the gross motor skills domain. Boys also fared worse on all but the emotional symptoms domain of the five SDQ domains. Frequent engagement in learning activities with an adult at home, such as reading or singing nursery rhymes is widely recognised in the research literature^[36] as having positive impacts on a child's development.

As well as the small improvements in child outcomes after a year of funded ELC, there were some small changes in employment prospects for parents. The proportion of respondents in paid employment had increased from 35% to 40%. There were also increases in the proportion of parents who said that because their child was in nursery they had been able to study or improve work-related skills, they had been able to increase the number of hours they work, they had been able to work or look for work, as well as having more time to themselves and being able to think about the future.

Comparing outcomes for those who had taken part at Phase 1 with the new cohort of children at Phase 3, it is evident that the development of those who were eligible for funding at age two (the "Eligible 2s") was not as advanced as the development of those in the nationally representative sample (the "Comparator 3s"). Thus, while there has been an apparent improvement over the course of a year at nursery among the Eligible 2s, there is still a gap between them and the Comparator 3s. The size of this gap will be a key measure when concluding the study in Phase 6, to see whether the increase in hours has helped to close it.

Scores on the SDQ and ASQ scales tended to be highly correlated for both cohorts, indicating that many of those children whose development was not on schedule in one area were more likely to not be on schedule in others. Settings therefore need to be able to assess and provide a range of support for children with multiple and diverse needs, many of whom may also live in households facing a range of challenges and disadvantage including poverty and low parental mental wellbeing. 

Regression models were again used to identify the key drivers of developmental delays, as assessed by the ASQ and SDQ scales, this time using only variables from Phase 3. For the Eligible 2s, this reduced the ability of the models to explain much of the variation in the sample. Development at age two was strongly correlated with development at age three. With no measure of development at age two included in these models, their explanatory power was lower than for the longitudinal models explored earlier. This highlights the importance of supporting child development from an early age. Not having a long-term condition which might affect development was an obvious driver of development being on schedule. The only other significant factor in either model was frequent home learning activities. Demographic factors, such as income, area deprivation, parental education, and living in a single parent household did not show any significant association with outcomes when included in the models. This implies that the problems identified for the Eligible 2s are fairly equally spread across the different subgroups. Having a lower income or lower level of education within the Eligible 2s group did not increase the chances of poor outcomes.

For the Comparator 3s, the two models included factors such as living in less deprived areas, having higher levels of education, being white, speaking English as the main language at home, and the parent not having a long-term health condition, all of which implied better outcomes for children. When looking at bivariate analysis, it becomes evident that for the Comparator 3s there is much more of a difference in outcomes between the more and less deprived, whatever measure of deprivation is used, than for the Eligible 2s, and the inclusion of multiple factors in the models implies that there may be a compounding of effects. Indeed, outcomes for the most deprived in terms of income, education and area deprivation among the Comparator 3s actually look very similar to outcomes for the Eligible 2s, so there could be an argument for widening eligibility criteria for funded ELC at age two.

In both models for the Comparator 3s, being a girl was associated with better outcomes, while in the SDQ model, even once other factors were controlled, living in a more ordered home and receiving more than 18 hours of childcare (both formal and informal) a week were both associated with better outcomes. This last factor hints that an increase in hours of ELC above the 600 hours (or 15-16 hours a week) which these children had been receiving may lead to better outcomes, although the measure that has been used in this report for hours of childcare is a very broad one, and it remains to be seen how the increase in funded hours will impact on children. We will have a much clearer picture of that once the remaining phases of data collection are complete. 

Home learning only appeared as a key driver in the models for the Eligible 2s. This does not mean that it was not still important for other children, but it does imply that it is particularly important for more deprived families. Regular engagement in home learning activities such as parent-child reading is known to have a positive influence on children's development. Encouragingly, more than half of parents of the Eligible 2s (compared with only a third of parents of the Comparator 3s) had spoken to someone at the nursery about how to support their child's learning at home and participation in such activities was common for almost all children in the cohort. However, not all children had been engaged in these activities to the same extent, and in particular boys were less likely to have done so.

Around two thirds of parents of the Comparator 3s were in employment at this stage in their child's nursery career, compared with just over one third of the parents of the Eligible 2s. However, among those not working, a lack of affordable, good-quality childcare was only seen as one of the main reasons for not working by a quarter of each cohort. It remains to be seen whether the increase in funded ELC hours will enable more parents, particularly among the Eligible 2s, to take up employment.

The time a child is in nursery offered many other opportunities for parents. More than two thirds of the Eligible 2s said it gave them time to think about the future, and a third had been able to study or improve work-related skills. Half had been feeling happier, and a slightly larger proportion had been feeling less stressed. Among the Comparator 3s, these figures were slightly lower. 

While most parents expressed relatively high levels of life satisfaction and wellbeing, those in the Comparator 3s group tended to be more content than those in the Eligible 2s group. Among the Comparator 3s, single parents and those on low-incomes also tended to report being less satisfied, bringing them to a similar level to the Eligible 2s. 

Most parents in both cohorts found their ELC setting accessible and nearly all engaged with the setting and its staff in a range of ways including discussing the child's progress, visiting the child's room and attending parents' evenings. Much smaller numbers of parents also received support from the nursery in other ways - for example with benefits issues, or in learning a new skill – this was more common amongst parents of the Eligible 2s. Parents in both cohorts overwhelmingly recognised the benefits to their children of attending nursery, particularly in terms of their socialisation and education. Most also saw some benefits to themselves, be that through allowing them time to work, study or train, to care for others, or just in having time to themselves. Disadvantages were rarely mentioned; where they were they tended to be around the flexibility and duration of nursery hours and how this limited parental employment patterns.

At the completion of the first three phases of the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare, we can see an overall picture of two groups of children and their families, one more advantaged than the other, even if they do not match perfectly onto the two cohorts of the study. The more advantaged families are more likely to have parents in employment, and to be able to make decisions about childcare based on income. The parents tend to have greater wellbeing, and the children better outcomes when assessed by the ASQ and the SDQ measures. The more disadvantaged families are less able to make use of additional childcare and tend to have worse outcomes for both parents and children. However, there are some indications that an increase in hours of ELC may benefit the more disadvantaged families and help to close the gap. The year of ELC the Eligible 2s have already received appears to have helped them improve on measures of development. The parents of the Eligible 2s tend to have engaged well with the ELC settings and they recognise the opportunities afforded to them in having their child in nursery, in terms of taking up employment or having more time to do other things. As the study enters its final three phases, when the expansion programme will have been fully rolled out, it will be able to assess whether an increase in hours benefits all children and families, and whether there is a closing of the gap between the more and less advantaged.