Publication - Research and analysis

Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare - ELC leavers: phase 2 report

Published: 27 Aug 2020

Findings from the second 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.

108 page PDF

1.1 MB

108 page PDF

1.1 MB

Contents
Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare - ELC leavers: phase 2 report
Appendix C – Supplementary tables

108 page PDF

1.1 MB

Appendix C – Supplementary tables

Table C1: Whether the full costs of the time child spends at nursery are met by the government, by respondent's (mother's) employment
  Respondent in employment Respondent not in employment All
% % %
Yes 66 89 72
No 34 11 28
Unweighted base 947 375 1,327

Base: All respondents (parent survey, weighted)

Table C2: Use of additional childcare, by OECD equivalised income quintile
  Bottom income quintile 2nd 3rd 4th Highest income quintile
% % % % %
Private or workplace crèche, nursery, playgroup or pre-school 2 6 6 7 10
Local Authority crèche, nursery, playgroup or pre-school 2 6 2 4 2
Community or voluntary crèche, nursery, playgroup or pre-school 0 1 1 2 0
Childminder 2 6 2 4 2
Grandparents 16 32 33 50 39
Ex-spouse or partner 4 6 4 0 1
Another relative 4 7 8 3 4
Nanny or babysitter - 1 0 2 3
Friend or neighbour 3 2 1 2 1
Other person - 0 0 1 -
None 76 60 59 41 54
Unweighted base 278 286 246 264 169

Base: All respondents (parent survey, weighted)

Table C3: Use of childcare prior to age three, by OECD equivalised income quintiles
  Bottom income quintile 2nd 3rd 4th Highest income quintile
% % % % %
Private or workplace crèche, nursery, playgroup or pre-school 18 24 33 43 53
Local Authority crèche, nursery, playgroup or pre-school 19 17 8 8 6
Community or voluntary crèche, nursery, playgroup or pre-school 6 4 8 4 6
Childminder 13 15 13 18 25
Grandparents 39 58 64 67 48
Ex-spouse or partner 14 11 11 6 2
Another relative 23 18 21 12 10
Nanny or babysitter 1 2 1 3 1
Friend or neighbour 6 6 7 3 5
Other person 15 6 6 4 5
Unweighted base 230 250 232 249 154

Base: All respondents who reported using childcare before child was aged 3 (parent survey, weighted)

Table C4: % of parents who participated in various activities at child's nursery by highest qualification of respondent
  None Standard Grade, National 3, 4 or 5, or equivalent Higher Grade or equivalent HNC, HND or equivalent Degree or equivalent
% % % % %
Visited your child's room 89 91 92 92 95
Attended a parents' evening or information meeting 69 87 80 87 89
Attended another type of nursery event 63 76 85 82 86
Helped out or offered to help out in the nursery including on a trip with a nursery event 37 45 41 40 45
Stayed and played with your child 52 57 56 61 59
Discussed your child's progress with her/his keyworker or another member of staff 96 97 96 98 98
Talked to someone about how to support your child's learning at home 50 54 51 59 57
Received help with your welfare rights or issues with benefits 7 7 2 2 1
Received help with transport to and from the nursery 7 1 1 1 0
Received help with food or clothing 6 6 0 2 2
Learned a new skill such as cooking or parenting skills 19 14 5 6 5
None of these - - - 1 0
Unweighted base 49 219 173 311 594

Base: All respondents (parent survey, weighted)

Table C5: Average duration of a one-trip journey from home to the setting, by urban / rural classification
  Urban Rural / Small town All
% % %
0 to 5 minutes 43 57 47
6 to 10 minutes 35 26 32
11 to 15 minutes 13 12 13
16 to 20 minutes 5 4 5
21 to 30 minutes 2 1 2
more than 30 minutes 2 0 1
Unweighted base 980 361 1,350

Base: All respondents (parent survey, weighted)

Table C6: ASQ communication domain by OECD equivalised income quintiles
  Bottom income quintile 2nd 3rd 4th Highest income quintile
% % % % %
Further assessment may be needed 9 7 6 2 4
Monitoring suggested 6 7 8 4 2
Child's development appears on schedule 84 86 86 94 94
Unweighted base 265 272 238 248 161

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C7: ASQ gross motor domain by highest qualification of respondent
  None Standard Grade, National 3, 4 or 5, or equivalent Higher Grade or equivalent HNC, HND or equivalent Degree or equivalent
% % % % %
Further assessment may be needed 18 16 7 8 6
Monitoring suggested 8 12 11 10 10
Child's development appears on schedule 74 72 82 82 85
Unweighted base 48 211 162 297 561

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C8: ASQ fine motor domain by OECD equivalised income quintiles
  Bottom income quintile 2nd 3rd 4th Highest income quintile
% % % % %
Further assessment may be needed 19 10 7 8 5
Monitoring suggested 11 12 5 4 3
Child's development appears on schedule 70 78 89 88 92
Unweighted base 266 273 240 248 160

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C9: ASQ fine motor domain by highest qualification of respondent
  None Standard Grade, National 3, 4 or 5, or equivalent Higher Grade or equivalent HNC, HND or equivalent Degree or equivalent
% % % % %
Further assessment may be needed 26 15 12 8 6
Monitoring suggested 17 14 10 7 5
Child's development appears on schedule 57 71 78 85 89
Unweighted base 48 210 162 298 564
Table C10: ASQ fine motor domain by household type
  Single parent Couple parent
% %
Further assessment may be needed 14 8
Monitoring suggested 10 7
Child's development appears on schedule 76 85
Unweighted base 258 1,045

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C11: ASQ problem solving domain by OECD equivalised income quintiles
  Bottom income quintile 2nd 3rd 4th Highest income quintile
% % % % %
Further assessment may be needed 7 0 2 - 0
Monitoring suggested 15 7 8 3 5
Child's development appears on schedule 78 93 90 97 94
Unweighted base 266 272 238 247 161

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C12: ASQ problem solving domain by highest qualification of respondent
  None Standard Grade, National 3, 4 or 5, or equivalent Higher Grade or equivalent HNC, HND or equivalent Degree or equivalent
% % % % %
Further assessment may be needed 9 5 2 2 1
Monitoring suggested 21 14 5 7 5
Child's development appears on schedule 70 81 93 91 94
Unweighted base 48 211 161 298 562

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C13: ASQ problem solving domain by household type
  Single parent Couple parent
% %
Further assessment may be needed 5 1
Monitoring suggested 13 6
Child's development appears on schedule 82 93
Unweighted base 258 1,043

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C14: SDQ total difficulties score by highest qualification of respondent
  None Standard Grade, National 3, 4 or 5, or equivalent Higher Grade or equivalent HNC, HND or equivalent Degree or equivalent
% % % % %
Close to average 72 80 87 84 89
Slightly raised 6 9 7 11 5
High 6 3 2 2 3
Very high 15 8 3 3 3
Unweighted base 49 211 161 298 563

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C15: SDQ total difficulties score by household type
  Single parent Couple parent
% %
Close to average 77 88
Slightly raised 11 7
High 5 2
Very high 7 3
Unweighted base 259 1,044

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C16: ASQ fine motor domain by how often child sleeps through the night without waking
  Never sleeps right through the night 1-2 times a week 3-5 times a week 6 times a week Every night
% % % % %
Further assessment may be needed 21 11 9 5 9
Monitoring suggested 9 8 11 4 8
Child's development appears on schedule 70 80 80 91 83
Unweighted base 90 104 169 169 774

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C17: ASQ fine motor domain by parental self-efficacy
  Coping well as a parent most or all of the time Coping well as a parent less often
% %
Further assessment may be needed 8 13
Monitoring suggested 6 12
Child's development appears on schedule 86 74
Unweighted base 967 314

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C18: ASQ fine motor domain by Confusion, Hubbub and Order scale
  Lowest tertile (4 to 6) (least chaotic) Middle tertile (7 or 8) Highest tertile (9 to 20) (most chaotic)
% % %
Further assessment may be needed 7 10 11
Monitoring suggested 6 5 13
Child's development appears on schedule 87 85 76
Unweighted base 389 461 434

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C19: SDQ total difficulties score by parental longstanding illness / health condition
  Parent has longstanding health condition Parent has no longstanding condition
% %
Close to average 79 87
Slightly raised 12 6
High 2 3
Very high 7 3
Unweighted base 254 1,047

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C20: SDQ total difficulties score by Home Learning Environment scale
  Bottom quartile (least frequent activities) 2nd 3rd Highest quartile (most frequent activities)
% % % %
Close to average 80 87 88 87
Slightly raised 9 9 6 7
High 6 1 4 1
Very high 6 4 2 5
Unweighted base 306 359 299 330

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C21: SDQ total difficulties score by whether child ever breastfed
  Ever breastfed Never breastfed
% %
Close to average 89 82
Slightly raised 5 10
High 2 4
Very high 4 4
Unweighted base 658 644

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C22: Parental self-reported general health by OECD equivalised income quintiles
  Bottom income quintile 2nd 3rd 4th Highest income quintile
% % % % %
Very good 25 33 45 59 52
Good 49 45 48 32 39
Fair 21 19 6 9 9
Bad 3 3 0 - 0
Very bad 1 - - - -
Unweighted base 278 286 247 265 169

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)

Table C23: Parental self-reported general health by area deprivation ( SIMD)
  Most deprived quintile 2nd 3rd 4th Least deprived quintile
% % % % %
Very good 28 37 49 48 54
Good 51 38 38 45 38
Fair 17 23 13 6 7
Bad 3 1 0 1 0
Very bad 1 1 - 0 -
Unweighted base 416 250 224 229 247

Base: All children (with responses to both parent questionnaire and keyworker observations, weighted)


Contact

Email: socialresearch@scotland.gov.scot