Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) – parents' views and use: research findings 2025

8 Flexibility of funded ELC

This chapter explores respondents’ experiences of the flexibility of funded ELC, including how dissatisfied respondents would prefer to use their funded hours.

All survey respondents who used funded ELC were asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were that they had been offered the flexibility to use funded ELC hours in a way that met their family’s needs (Figure 8.1).

The majority (90%) of respondents with three- to five-year-olds who used funded hours were either very (62%) or fairly satisfied (28%) that they had been offered the flexibility to use funded ELC hours in a way that met their family’s needs. Similarly, the majority (95%) of respondents with two-year-olds who used funded hours were either very (71%) or fairly satisfied (24%). A small proportion of respondents with three- to five-year-olds (8%) and two-year-olds (4%) reported they were dissatisfied with the flexibility offered. These findings are similar to those from 2022.

Base: unweighted base, n=6,084 for 3-5-year-olds, n=197 for 2-year-olds

8.1 Satisfaction with flexibility of funded ELC

In interviews, parents explained why they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the flexibility of funded ELC they were offered.

One reason parents were satisfied with the flexibility of funded ELC hours was that the hours fitted well around their family life. For some participants, this was because the ELC setting’s drop-off and pick-up times corresponded with the times for older school age children. This saved them from making multiple trips and helped prepare ELC-aged children for school hours. These factors also made accessing funded ELC easier for parents (see 6.1.1.).

For other participants, the ELC hours fitted well around their working or studying hours. ELC settings which offered wraparound childcare that started from 7-8 am and allowed pick-ups from 4-6 pm enabled participants to work full-time, without relying on family support. Some of those who were satisfied with the flexibility of ELC said this was in part facilitated by having an employer or manager at work who was flexible and understanding, which allowed them to fit work around ELC hours.

Because we dinnae have any family support and in reality the cost of nursery is absolutely ridiculous, I could’nae go back to work to have set days or times and actually the nursery was quite…trying to get it to work in the nursery as well was quite difficult. So I was’nae able to return back to work, to my main job that I did previously. However, the local authority offered me a relief position […] so I’m still working like part-time but I have no set days or times so I can just work when my husband is not working. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

Finally, there were participants who were satisfied because the ELC settings offered flexibility for their children with ASN. This included providing some flexibility around drop-off and pick-up times so children who find busy crowds and noise distressing could avoid the rush. Other ways ELC settings provided flexibility for children, particularly with ASN, included providing space in the ELC setting for a child to attend appointments with external support workers, and allowing children to build up their ELC hours slowly over time so they can adjust to the environment.

Participants gave a range of examples which illustrated how ELC settings offered flexibility around the personal circumstances and needs of both parents and children. These included recognising that parents had distances to travel, or family commitments to juggle, to get their children to ELC, and offering flexibility in drop-off times to enable the children to participate in funded ELC.

8.2 Dissatisfaction with flexibility of funded ELC

In interviews and open text responses, one of the main reasons parents gave for their dissatisfaction with the flexibility of funded ELC hours was that the hours did not fit well around their family life and their ELC providers could not offer flexibility to accommodate this. For example, there were families who had multiple ELC-aged children who were placed at different ELC settings with the same hours which made coordinating drop-offs and pick-ups challenging. Children could be placed at different ELC settings due to availability of ELC placements, or due to the needs of the child. Regardless of the reasons, transporting children to numerous settings was time-consuming and costly and impacted on parents’ ability to work, or the hours they could work. This was also a challenge for families with ELC-aged and school-aged children who were based in different locations and for parents who did not have access to a car, or regular and reliable public transport options.

There were also participants who said the hours offered to them did not meet the needs of their child. For example, there were participants with two- or three-year-olds who thought 8am-6pm was too long a day for their young children. Therefore, they picked up their children earlier which meant they lost out on funded hours.

I find 6 o’clock is far too late for a 3-4 year old. So they get picked up at 4 o’clock. […] They need to look at those hours and the flexibility and making sure that it’s based on the needs of the child and not the needs of the parents. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

Participants were also dissatisfied with the flexibility of funded ELC where the hours offered did not fit around their working hours. It was common for participants to say that they had limited or no choice of ELC setting, and therefore they were limited to the hours offered by the only ELC setting(s) available. Where this was an LA nursery, the hours on offer were often 9am-3pm. In other circumstances, participants were only offered either a morning or afternoon placement for their child, when they wanted either full-time hours or would have preferred the opposite session. It was common for participants to say that these times did not fit around full-time working hours and employers were not always able, or willing, to offer flexibility with working hours. Therefore, some participants had to rely on family to help with drop-off/pick-up to enable them to work full-time.

It puts myself and my husband under a complete strain and a disadvantage really to be able to work a full-time job. You almost feel like you’re kind of being penalised and not be able to work full-time hours because the hours available are completely inflexible at her childcare provider. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

Because I work out of town, I can’t obviously do all the drop offs and pickups because of the times that are offered. […] I have to rely on family members to be able to do a pickup or a drop off every single week. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

However, not everyone had access to family members nearby who were able to help, so they either had to work fewer hours to fit around childcare, not work at all, or pay for additional childcare so they could work. Some participants changed their jobs to fit around ELC hours.

I was on a full-time 37.5 hour contract. […] There’s no flexibility when you’re seeing patients, you’ve got a start time and an end time and I just felt I really could’nae do that with two wee ones still at nursery so I’ve kind of dropped to 2 days. […] I’m going to have to do that on a permanent basis just now. (Parent of a two-year-old and a three- to five-year-old)

The only way that we are able to complete our jobs is by paying an external childcare provider. So that is a bit of a difficulty and it’s a financial strain. (Parent of a three- to five-year-old)

8.3 Improving the flexibility of funded ELC

Survey respondents who said they were dissatisfied with the flexibility of the funded ELC they had been offered were asked how they would prefer to use their funded hours (Figure 8.2). Parents were provided with a list of nine potential options (plus ‘Other’) for how they would prefer to use their funded hours and could select all that were applicable. The number of respondents with eligible two-year-olds who said they were dissatisfied with the flexibility of the funded ELC is too low to report to report this breakdown. Details can be found in Supplementary Tables G1a-G6b.

As shown in Figure 8.2, dissatisfied respondents with children aged three to five most commonly wanted greater flexibility with how hours could be used week to week (40%), to use hours throughout the year (32%), or for sessions to be within school hours (22%). These are different from the findings in 2022 where the most common responses were longer sessions on fewer days per week (27%), throughout the school holidays (24%) and shorter sessions on more days per week (23%). In 2018 the most common response (65%) was parents would prefer longer funded sessions on fewer days of the week.

Base: Parents with a 3-5-year-old, unweighted base, n=452

Survey respondents who selected they wanted hours during school holidays (22%), longer sessions on fewer days per week (19%), and shorter sessions on more days (18%), were given the option to provide more detail on how they would prefer to use the funded hours. In interviews, parents who were dissatisfied with the flexibility of funded hours were also asked this question. The same themes were highlighted in both the open text survey responses and the interviews.

Participants with school-aged children would prefer funded ELC hours to be similar to school hours so they could drop-off and pick-up children at the same time. However, there were working parents who found school hours too restrictive and would prefer ELC hours to accommodate typical full-time working hours. There were also participants who would like the option for year-round provision at their ELC setting to better accommodate their work as well as helping maintain routines for children. Some participants said they would be willing to pay for this additional provision though they recognised that not every parent could afford to pay for additional childcare. For these parents, extending funded ELC hours further would be their preference.

Overall, participants wanted more flexibility to choose hours that met their and their children’s needs. It was common for participants to share that they felt they were losing out on funded hours if they could not, or did not want to, use the times allocated to them. For a range of reasons, parents had to drop off a child later than the ELC opening time or pick them up earlier than the ELC closing time but their allocated funded hours would be counted as the full session. Participants would prefer that their funded hours were calculated on the times they actually used so they could better meet their needs and the needs of their child. For some this was longer hours on fewer days, and for others it was shorter hours on more days. Some also wished to use their funded hours across multiple providers but they were not sure whether this was available in their local authority.

We don’t use the full day we are entitled to (we use about 7 hours per day compared to the 9 we are entitled to). We’d like to be able to bank these and use towards a day as it feels wasted. (Survey open text response)

There were participants who felt that current funded ELC provision was not flexible enough to sufficiently meet their needs or the needs of their children. This affected participants’ ability to work, their mental health and wellbeing, their relationships with their children and their children’s development. Participants suggested a number of changes to the general model of ELC provision in Scotland which could make funded ELC more flexible, and therefore more accessible, to a wide range of families. These modifications included increasing the number and types of funded ELC providers available, and/or the number of funded spaces available at existing ELC providers. Participants thought that greater local ELC provision would enable more children to be placed at ELC settings closer to home, making pick-ups and drop-offs easier for some parents. Furthermore, having access to a range of different ELC settings close by, some of which offered extended hours, could also make it easier for parents to choose a provider with hours that met their needs.

Participants also suggested increasing the number of funded spaces available with childminders specifically, as childminders were perceived to offer more flexibility with ELC hours and more tailored support for ASN. However, participants acknowledged that government funding of ELC provision may need to change to make this feasible. It was also noted that childminders are restricted in relation to the number of children with ASN they can provide care for at any one time^[29]. Participants suggested providing special or greater funding for childminders to be able to provide care for children with ASN and therefore increase the options available to parents. Finally, there were participants who would like greater flexibility to use funded ELC hours across different local authorities to allow children to stay in an ELC setting even if the family moves local authority, to minimise disruption to their children.