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

Executive Summary

Background

This report outlines findings from the third phase of the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare (SSELC), a research project established to evaluate the expansion of early learning and childcare (ELC) in Scotland.

The expansion of funded ELC in Scotland was due to take effect from August 2020. Implementation of the statutory duty to deliver 1140 has, however, been paused due to the wide-ranging impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. A timetable for the reinstatement of the duty will be agreed by the Scottish Government and local authorities once the full implications of the pandemic are understood. The timetable for completion of the follow-up phases of the SSELC will also be affected by this change and an updated evaluation timetable will be confirmed in due course. 

Once the expansion programme is rolled out, this will see the hours of funded ELC nearly double for all three-and four-year-olds, and eligible two-year-olds, to 1140 per year. The expansion seeks to achieve three long term outcomes: 

1. Children's development improves and the attainment gap narrows;

2. Parents' opportunities to be in work, training or study increase; and

3. Family wellbeing improves through enhanced nurture and support.

The SSELC has been designed to evaluate whether the ELC expansion programme has achieved these objectives by measuring outcomes for children and parents receiving the existing entitlement and comparing them to those who receive the increased entitlement. The aims of Phase 3, which focused on children aged three, were to gather:

• Robust data on child outcomes for children who had taken part at Phase 1 (the "Eligible 2s") after one year of receiving 600 hours of funded ELC provision.
• Robust baseline data on child outcomes for a separate nationally-representative sample of three-year-olds who were receiving 600 hours of funded ELC provision (the "Comparator 3s").
• Robust baseline data on parent outcomes linked to the above two samples of three-year-olds.

The eligibility criteria for statutory funded ELC for two-year-olds are aimed at those who experience the greatest disadvantage from their circumstances. This means that families of the "Eligible 2s" followed up in Phase 3 were more likely to be experiencing varying levels of socio-economic difficulties. The criteria include children who are looked after, are subject to kinship care or guardianship order, as well as families who are in receipt of certain qualifying benefits (out of work or income-related benefits with an annual income below a designated threshold). 

Methods

Two separate samples were recruited, one following up children who had taken part at Phase 1 after one year of 600 hours of funded ELC (the "Eligible 2s"), and a separate, nationally representative sample of children of the same age receiving up to 600 hours of funded ELC provision at Phase 3, and their parents. Children in both samples were aged between 3 years 0 months and 3 years 6 months when the fieldwork took place. Participants in the Eligible 2s sample were contacted either via the ELC setting they attended at Phase 1 or, if they had changed settings, via their new setting. Participants in the Comparator 3s sample were recruited from a subsample of settings which took part, or indicated willingness to take part, at Phase 2. Settings at Phase 2 had been selected randomly across 30 local authorities, ensuring a random sample for Phase 3 also. Within each setting, up to 10 children were randomly selected and invited to take part. 

Data were gathered on children via a survey of parents/carers and a survey on the children's development undertaken by their ELC keyworkers (using the same cohort of children as the parent/carer survey). The same questionnaires were used for both the Eligible 2s and the Comparator 3s, and were very similar to those used in previous phases of the study, with adjustments made for the ages of the children. Fieldwork was conducted between October and December 2019. A total of 269 questionnaires were received from parents/carers and 376 from keyworkers in the Eligible 2s sample, while 565 questionnaires were received from parents/carers and 811 from keyworkers in the Comparator 3s sample.

Key findings

Characteristics of the cohort

• At age 3, as may be expected, children in the Eligible 2s group lived in significantly more disadvantaged circumstances than the average Scottish three-year-old.
• More than half (57%) of those responding to the parent questionnaire among the Eligible 2s were single parents, compared with 16% of the Comparator 3s. 
• One in six (17%) of the parents of the Eligible 2s had a university degree or equivalent and 46% had no or lower school qualifications (such as Standard Grades, National 3s, 4s or 5s) only, compared with nearly half (47%) of the parents of the Comparator 3s with a degree and 17% with no or lower school qualifications.
• Half (47%) of the Eligible 2s resided in the most deprived 20% of areas according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), while a further 27% resided in the second most deprived 20% of areas. In contrast, the Comparator 3s were equally spread across the quintiles.
• Forty-two percent of respondents in the Eligible 2s group had household incomes amongst the bottom 10% of incomes for all households, compared with 13% in the Comparator 3s. Three quarters (76%) of the Eligible 2s lived in households where the income was amongst the lowest 30% for all households, compared with 29% for the Comparator 3s. 
• Parent/carers of the Eligible 2s tended to be younger than those of the Comparator 3s, with 42% under the age of 30, including 13% under the age of 25, compared with 18% of the Comparator 3s under the age of 30, including 4% under the age of 25.
• Nearly all respondents were white (96% of the Eligible 2s and 95% of the Comparator 3s), and most spoke only English at home (90% of the Eligible 2s and 89% of the Comparator 3s).

Change in outcomes for Eligible 2s and their parents between Phase 1 and Phase 3 

Analysis in this section was based on the same group of children at both Phase 1 and Phase 3 – i.e. those for whom a keyworker questionnaire was completed at both phases or a parent questionnaire was completed at both phases. Figures may therefore differ slightly from those for the Eligible 2s previously published in the Phase 1 report. 

Child health and home learning

• At both Phase 1 and Phase 3, most children (in the Eligible 2s sample) were in good or very good health (91% at Phase 1, 93% at Phase 3).
• Twelve percent of children at Phase 1 and 14% at Phase 3 had a long-term illness or health condition. Of those with a condition at Phase 1, a third (33%) were not reported as having the condition at Phase 3, while small numbers were reported as having a condition at Phase 3 but not at Phase 1.
• Around three quarters of parents at each phase said they had no concerns about how the child talked (72% at Phase 1 and 75% at Phase 3), while nine out of ten said they had no concerns about what the child understood (89% at each phase). Where strong concerns existed, they tended to persist, but there was movement in both directions.
• Levels of participation in learning activities at home were fairly similar at Phase 1 and Phase 3. More than half the children at both phases looked at books or read stories with someone in their household every day of the week (54% at each phase). A quarter of children did painting or drawing every day at both Phase 1 and Phase 3 (25% at Phase 1 and 26% at Phase 3). Two thirds of children sang songs or recited nursery rhymes (67% at Phase 1 and 70% at Phase 3). Nearly half played at recognising letters, numbers or shapes (40% at Phase 1 and 46% at Phase 3).
• Where children were frequently involved with home learning activities at age two, this tended to continue at age three: 70% of those who looked at books or read stories with someone in their household every day at age two did the same at age three. 

Child development – Ages and Stages Questionnaire

Children's keyworkers at ELC settings were asked to complete observations of the child's development using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ). The ASQ provides a structured assessment of a range of developmental domains. There are 30 items split into five different domains: communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem solving and personal-social. Each domain produces a summary score which can be used to indicate whether the child's development is perceived to be on schedule, needs monitoring or requires further assessment. 

• On four of the five ASQ domains there was an increase in the proportion of children (in the Eligible 2s cohort) reported as on schedule after one year of funded ELC provision. This increase was largest for the personal-social domain, from 41% on schedule at age two to 71% one year later. 
• While the overall pattern saw an increase in the proportion on schedule for the Eligible 2s after a year of funded ELC, there was movement in both directions. Some children who appeared on schedule at Phase 1 were no longer recorded as such one year later, and other children who were not recorded as on schedule when they were age two appeared to be on schedule at age three. 
• Regression analysis was used to identify the factors from Phase 1 most strongly associated with child outcomes at Phase 3. This difference in the timings helps us to see the direction of any association, although it does not imply causality. There was a strong association between being on schedule at age two and being on schedule at age three. Other significant factors, after controlling for ASQ score at Phase 1, included being a girl (which was associated with being on schedule at both phases), having a parent/carer with upper school qualifications, such as Highers, and frequent home learning activities (both of which were much more strongly associated with ASQ scores at Phase 3 than at Phase 1). 

Child development – Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Children's keyworkers were also asked to complete observations of the child's development using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). The SDQ comprises 25 questions about a child's behaviour. Responses can be combined to form a measure of 'total difficulties', plus five different subscales measuring aspects of the child's development: emotional symptoms; conduct problems; hyperactivity / inattention; peer relationship problems; and prosocial behaviour. Within each domain (with the exception of the prosocial one) children's scores can be put into the following categories: 'close to average', 'slightly raised', 'high' and 'very high', with 'very high' indicating multiple behavioural difficulties. For the prosocial domain higher scores indicate more positive behaviour, so categories of 'slightly lowered', 'low' and 'very low' are used. 

• On four of the five SDQ domains there was an increase in the proportion of children assessed as close to average after one year of funded ELC provision. This was largest for the SDQ prosocial domain, increasing from 45% at age two, to 73% at age three, although some caution must be applied given the natural development of children in prosocial behaviour around this age. The total difficulties domain saw an increase in the proportion with close to average scores from 44% at Phase 1 to 58% at Phase 3.
• Two thirds (69%) of those with a close to average SDQ total difficulties score at age two continued to have a close to average score one year later, while one third (31%) had a raised or high score at the age of three. Half (49%) of those with a raised or high score at age two had improved to a close to average score by age three. Similar regression analysis was used to identify the factors from Phase 1 most strongly associated with having a close to average score on the SDQ total difficulties scale. Key drivers were: a close to average score at age two, being female, and doing frequent home learning activities at age two.
• There was a slight widening of the gap between boys and girls, and between those children undertaking learning activities at home most frequently and other children, in the proportion of children with a close to average SDQ total difficulties score from age two to age three.

Parent outcomes

• Over the course of a year there was a small increase in the proportion of parents and carers of Eligible 2s who reported working part time, from 25% at Phase 1 to 33% at Phase 3, and the proportion in either part-time or full-time work increased from 35% to 40%. There was a corresponding drop in the proportion who reported looking after the home or family, from 72% to 63%. 
• Of those who were in work or training at Phase 1, most (88%) remained in work at Phase 3. Similarly, most (83%) of those who were not in work at Phase 1 were not in work at Phase 3, while one in six (17%) of those who were not in work at Phase 1 had since found employment.
• Around three quarters of parents of the Eligible 2s agreed at Phase 3 with the statements that they had been able to think about what they may do in the future (74%) and that they had more time to themselves (73%), in both cases up from 67% at Phase 1. The majority at Phase 3 were also feeling less stressed (60% at both Phase 1 and Phase 3) and feeling happier (55% at Phase 1 and 53% at Phase 3). Half (48%) agreed they had been able to work or look for work because their child was in nursery, up from 41% at Phase 1, and a third (35%) agreed they had been able to study or improve work-related skills, up from 29% at Phase 1.
• At Phase 3, 58% of the Eligible 2s sample said they were coping well as parents most or all of the time, showing little change from Phase 1 (59%). 

Comparisons of outcomes between Eligible 2s at Phase 3 and Comparator 3s

Analysis in this section is based on Phase 3 data only, so figures for the Eligible 2s may differ slightly from those reported earlier.

Child health and home learning

• Most children were described as being in good or very good health by their parent or carer, although the proportion was slightly higher for the Comparator 3s than the Eligible 2s (96% and 91% respectively). 
• The proportion of children with a longstanding illness or health condition was higher for the Eligible 2s than for the Comparator 3s: 14% of the Eligible 2s had a longstanding condition, compared with 7% of the Comparator 3s. This difference was largely due to children who had a referred (local authority funded) place at age two.
• A quarter (25%) of the parents of the Eligible 2s mentioned concerns about how their child talks, including 37% of parents of children receiving referred places at age two, compared with one in six (17%) of the parents of the Comparator 3s. 
• The Comparator 3s were slightly more likely than the Eligible 2s to look at books every day (62% compared with 54%). However, there was little different in the proportions who did painting or drawing every day (25% of the Eligible 2s and 23% of the Comparator 3s) and recited nursery rhymes or sing songs every day (66% of the Eligible 2s and 61% of the Comparator 3s). 
• Girls within the Comparator 3s were more likely than boys to look at books (68% compared with 56%). In both groups, girls were twice as likely as boys to paint or draw every day (33% of girls and 16% of boys in the Eligible 2s, and 32% of girls and 15% of boys in the Comparator 3s). Girls were also more likely to recite nursery rhymes or sing songs every day in both groups. 

Child Development - ASQ

• For four of the five ASQ domains a higher proportion of those in the Comparator 3s group were on schedule at Phase 3 than those in the Eligible 2s. Once the programme to increase the funded hours of ELC has been fully rolled out, it will be of particular interest to assess whether these gaps at age three have decreased. 
• The largest difference in the proportion on schedule was for the communication domain: two thirds (67%) of the Comparator 3s were on schedule at Phase 3, compared with half (50%) of the Eligible 2s. Smaller differences in the proportion on schedule were observed for the fine motor domain (64% of the Comparator 3s and 54% of the Eligible 2s), the problem solving domain (63% of the Comparator 3s and 53% of the Eligible 2s) and the personal-social domain (77% of the Comparator 3s and 71% of the Eligible 2s). The gross motor skills domain was the one with the smallest proportion of children on schedule, and no difference between the two groups (47% of the Eligible 2s and 46% of the Comparator 3s).
• Differences by gender were slightly more evident for the Eligible 2s than for the Comparator 3s, although they were still present for both groups on all but the gross motor domain. 
• For the Comparator 3s, the proportion on schedule for the ASQ problem solving domain tended to increase with decreasing levels of deprivation, from 54% in the most deprived 20% of areas to 73% in the least deprived 40%. On the other domains, differences were not significant.
• Regression analysis was used to identify the factors most strongly associated with child outcomes at Phase 3. For the Comparator 3s, the strongest predictor was having a parent with a degree or upper-school or post-school qualifications (e.g. Highers), with being female, speaking English at home as the only or main language, and having a parent with no long-term health condition also marginally statistically significant.

Child Development - SDQ

• For the emotional symptoms and prosocial behaviour domains, the differences between the Eligible 2s and the Comparator 3s were very small. Around three quarters of children scored close to average on the emotional symptoms domain (77% of the Eligible 2s and 79% of the Comparator 3s) and on the prosocial behaviour domain (72% of the Eligible 2s and 75% of the Comparator 3s). 
• Differences in the total difficulties score (58% of the Eligible 2s close to average, compared with 66% of the Comparator 3s) were driven by differences in the conduct problems domain (75% of the Eligible 2s and 82% of the Comparator 3s close to average), the hyperactivity domain (53% of the Eligible 2s and 61% of the Comparator 3s) and the peer problems domain (55% of the Eligible 2s and 63% of the Comparator 3s).
• With the exception of the emotional symptoms domain, the proportion of girls scoring close to average was higher than the proportion of boys for both the Eligible 2s and the Comparator 3s. 
• Children's scores on each of the ASQ domains were strongly correlated with their SDQ total difficulties score for both groups. 
• Regression analysis was again used to look at the drivers of close to average scores on the SDQ total difficulties scale. For the Comparator 3s, five key drivers of a close to average score were identified: being a girl, living in a non-deprived area, being white, living in an ordered / non-chaotic home, and receiving more than 18 hours a week of childcare, both formal and informal (i.e. more than just the statutory entitlement of ELC). 
• Among the Comparator 3s, 72% of those in the least deprived two quintiles were assessed as close to average on the SDQ total difficulties scale, compared with 60-62% in the most deprived two quintiles. Around two thirds (66-69%) of the Comparator 3s living in the most well-ordered homes achieved a close to average score compared with 58% living in more disorganised homes. While 71% of the Comparator 3s receiving more than 18 hours a week childcare were assessed as close to average on the total difficulties scale, compared with 58% of those receiving 18 hours or fewer each week. 

Parent outcomes

• The majority of parents in both groups had been employed at one point, with those in the Comparator 3s (97%) more likely to have been employed than those in the Eligible 2s (80%). 
• Parents in the Comparator 3s group were much more likely to have been working in the past 7 days than those in the Eligible 2s. Two thirds (69%) of parents of the Comparator 3s had been working, including 28% full-time and 41% part-time, compared with 38% of the Eligible 2s (9% full-time and 29% part-time). 
• Parents who were in employment were asked if they would work more if they could afford good quality childcare. Those in the Eligible 2s group were more likely to agree (53%) than those in the Comparator 3s (34%). Among the Comparator 3s, agreement was more likely for those on lower incomes. 
• The majority of parents in both groups reported being in good or very good health, although the proportion doing so among the Comparator 3s (83%) was higher than that among the Eligible 2s (63%). Among the Comparator 3s, those in two parent households, those on higher incomes and those with a higher level of education were all more likely to rate their health as good or very good. 
• Parents in the Eligible 2s group were more likely to have a longstanding condition (41%, including 37% with a limiting longstanding condition) than those in the Comparator 3s (20%, including 14% with a limiting condition). For both groups, those in single parent households were more likely to have a longstanding illness than those in couple parent households. The proportion with a longstanding condition among the Comparator 3s declined with increasing levels of income and education.
• Parents in the Comparator 3s group were more likely to say they were coping well as a parent most or all of the time (73% compared with 57% of the Eligible 2s). 
• Parents in the Eligible 2s group were more likely than those in the Comparator 3s group to say they had been feeling happier as a result of having their child in nursery (51% compared with 42% of the Comparator 3s), that they had been feeling less stressed (58% compared with 42%), that they had more time to themselves (72% compared with 63%), that they were able to think about what they may do in the future (71% compared with 57%) and that they had been able to care for other family members (57% and 35%). 
• For the Comparator 3s, those in the bottom two income quintiles were more likely to agree they were feeling less stressed, feeling happier, had more time to themselves, had been able to think about what they may do in the future and had been able to care for other family members compared with those in the top three quintiles. Those with lower levels of education, in single parent households and living in more deprived areas also appeared to benefit more in terms of feeling happier, less stressed, having more time to themselves and being more able to think about the future.

Use of ELC

• Most parents reported that the full costs of the time their child spent at the setting was met by the government, although this proportion was higher for the Eligible 2s (92% compared with 78% of the Comparator 3s). 
• For the Comparator 3s, clear relationships were evident between whether the child's time at the setting was funded by the government and a range of demographic factors. Nearly all (94%) respondents in the Comparator 3s group who were not in work or training had full funding through the statutory entitlement, compared with 73% of those who were in work or training. Those on lower incomes were more likely to have all the time spent by the child at the setting funded through their statutory entitlement. 
• Around half of the families in the Comparator 3s group (49%) got help with childcare on a regular basis from another provider compared with a third (32%) of the families of the Eligible 2s. 
• Grandparents were the most commonly used form of additional childcare, with 36% of parents of the Comparator 3s and 17% of parents of the Eligible 2s using them. In both groups, those in work or training were much more likely to use grandparents for childcare than those who were not.
• Those in the Comparator 3s group accessed an average of 7.6 hours of unfunded additional hours per week, compared with 3.7 hours for the Eligible 2s. Much of this difference can be explained by employment status. In both groups those in work or training accessed, in general, more unfunded hours than those who were not. 
• The majority of respondents among both the Eligible 2s (62%) and the Comparator 3s (70%) felt that they got enough support with childcare from family or friends living outside of the household. 
• The large majority of parents had discussed their child's progress with her/his keyworker since they started nursery (94% for the Eligible 2s, 88% for the Comparator 3s). Parents of the Eligible 2s were more likely to have spoken to someone about how to support their child's learning at home (57% compared with 30% of the Comparator 3s). Parents of the Eligible 2s were also more likely to have engaged with some of the wider support some settings are able to provide. 
• More than 9 in 10 parents in both groups said that attending nursery had been enjoyable for their child and that it had given their child opportunities to interact and socialise with other children. A slightly higher proportion of the Comparator 3s than the Eligible 2s mentioned that it had enabled them to work, study or train (45% and 37% respectively), while the reverse was true in terms of enabling them to care for others (28% of the Eligible 2s and 19% of the Comparator 3s). 
• A majority of parents in both groups said there were no disadvantages to their child being in nursery – 67% of the Comparator 3s and 70% of the Eligible 2s. Where disadvantages were cited the more popular responses were that the child was not in nursery for long enough to enable time for work (15% of Comparator 3s and 14% of Eligible 2s) and that nursery hours were not flexible (13% of Comparator 3s and 9% of Eligible 2s).