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

Footnotes

1. Scottish Government (2016) A Blueprint for 2020: The Expansion of Early Learning and Childcare in Scotland – Quality Action Plan, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

2. More information on the eligibility criteria for two-year-olds is available online (www.gov.scot).

3. NHS Health Scotland (2017) Evaluability assessment of the expansion of early learning and childcare.

4. Broadly, family wellbeing in the context of ELC is considered to be a combination of children and parents' health and well-being, and the ability of parents to undertake suitable parenting and activities that may contribute to the long-term prosperity of the family unit.

5. Scottish study of early learning and childcare: phase 1 report (www.gov.scot).

6. Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare - ELC leavers: phase 2 report (www.gov.scot).

7. Funded early learning and childcare (mygov.scot).

8. Further information on these instruments is provided in the relevant section of the report.

9. Where settings did not respond to the letter or telephone calls, as was the case for around 10% of settings, children were assumed to still be in attendance at the same setting.

10. Once weighting had been applied to take account of the deliberate oversampling of deprived areas.

11. Note that inspectors were acting as observers and not in their regulatory capacity and used a different tool in their observations than would be used for a formal quality grading.

12. Further information on these instruments is provided in the relevant section of the report.

13. 70 settings provided information about the number of eligible children, at an average of 8.4 potential responses per setting.

14. Including single foster parents and single grandparent households.

15. Including parents, grandparents, older siblings and other adults.

16. Equivalised household income adjusts household income according to the typical income requirements for the number of people in the household. The OECD adjustment has been used in this case, where household income is divided by a household size factor, which is the sum of 0.67 for the first adult in the household, 0.33 for each subsequent adult or child aged 14 or above, and 0.20 for each child aged 13 or below. The range of incomes is then divided into ten groups – deciles - according to the spread of average national household income levels, with each decile expected to capture 10% of household incomes. Cut points for the equivalized income deciles have been taken from a national survey of people in households in Scotland, the Scottish Health Survey 2018.

17. That is, less than £10,214 p.a. for a two adult household, £8,886 for a household of one adult and one child under the age of 14, £14,300 for two adults and two children, and more for larger households.

18. That is, less than £19,425 p.a. for a two adult household, £16,900 for a household of one adult and one child under the age of 14, £27,195 for two adults and two children, and more for larger households.

19. Scottish Government (2012) The Scottish Child Health Programme: Guidance on the 27-30 month child health review, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

20. Bedford, H., Walton, S., Ahn, J. (2013) Measures of Child Development: A review, London: Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health.

21. At Phase 1 there was an issue with one of the three questionnaires used which meant that two questions on the gross motor domain were missed for some of the children. This may have slightly inflated the proportion reported as on schedule at Phase 1.

22. Inspectors from the Care Inspectorate, acting on behalf of this study rather than in an official capacity, were asked to rate each setting they observed on a broad range of quality measures. Each item was scored on a scale of 1 to 7 (inadequate to excellent). Items were combined to provide scores for six different domains: space and furnishings; personal care routines; language and books; activities; interaction and program structure. Scores for these domains were averaged to provide an overall score. For the purpose of this report, settings were divided into those with an average score of 5 and above and those with a score of below 5. More information about ITERS-3 is provided in the Phase 1 report.

23. Note that the base of this figure is those with ASQ scores at both Phase 1 and Phase 3, so percentages are likely to differ from those reported in later sections.

24. The small differences in the numbers shown in Figure 3 and Figure 16 for the Eligible 2s at Phase 3 are due to the inclusion of a small number of additional children in Figure 16 for whom keyworker observations were completed at Phase 3 but not at Phase 1.

25. Response categories were reversed for the final two items before summing responses, so that for each question a higher value implied less order and more chaos within the home.

26. The proportion of the variation explained by the model is represented by the value of Nagelkerke's R-square. This is a measure that mimics R-square as used in linear regression but cannot be interpreted in quite the same way as the actual proportion of the variation. Instead we just recognise that 0.1 is quite low, whereas above 0.2 for this type of data would allow us to be more confident that we had captured the main drivers.

27. It is also partly due to the smaller sample size in the regression model, including only cases with completed keyworker and parent questionnaires.

28. Because of the small numbers of children living in a home where English is not the main language, we should not read too much into such marginally significant results.

29. Being a girl was significant when the regression model used only data from the keyworker observation, but not when the sample size was reduced in order to take into account responses to the parent questionnaire. Figure 27 uses keyworker data only for boys and girls.

30. The most well-ordered homes were those in the top two thirds of the scale created from four items of the Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale.

31. Recorded in the keyworker questionnaire as at least 15 hours of government or local authority funding per week. Distinctions between government and local authority (referred) funding have not been made in the analysis.

32. This is not a fair comparison, as a number of children, mostly among the Eligible 2s, were receiving 30 hours a week of government-funded ELC. The Eligible 2s sample included those who were receiving 600 hours a year of funded ELC when they were two. Around one in five of the Eligible 2s had either moved setting in order to receive an increase in hours or were receiving the increased hours at the same setting. These children were included in the sample for Phase 3 as it was important to see how they and their families had progressed after a year of 600 hours of funded ELC. The additional three months of increased hours is not expected to affect the findings. A much smaller number of the Comparator 3s were also receiving the increased entitlement, because the setting they attended had started providing the increased hours after the sample was drawn.

33. Depending on the setting, the annual statutory entitlement of 600 hours worked out as between 15 and 16.25 hours per week. Some children received discretionary funding from their local authority on top of this, while others did not take their full allocation.

34. Figures differ from those previously mentioned as some parents said they used childcare but did not mention any specific type of childcare.

35. Table 11 includes data only for those with a definite number of hours provided for each combination of childcare. Figures may therefore differ from those reported elsewhere because of the reduced sample size.

36. See, for example, Bradshaw, P., King, T., Knudsen, L., Law, J. and Sharp, C. (2016). Language Development and Enjoyment of Reading: Impacts of Early Parent-Child Activities in Two Growing up in Scotland Cohorts. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/publications/language-development-enjoyment-reading-impacts-early-parent-child-activities-two/.

37. Note that inspectors were acting as observers and not in their regulatory capacity, and used a different tool in their observations than would be used for a formal quality grading.

38. Further information on these instruments is provided in the relevant section of the report.

39. 70 settings provided information about the number of eligible children, at an average of 8.4 potential responses per setting.