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

Appendix A: Methodology

Research aims and objectives

The overarching aim of this research was to provide up-to-date information on parents’^[33] use of, views about, and experiences with ELC, particularly funded ELC, in the fourth year since the statutory entitlement rose from 600 to 1140 funded hours. The research explored parents’ perceptions of the flexibility, accessibility, quality and affordability of ELC, drawing out any relevant comparisons with 2022 data. The research objectives were to:

• Provide up-to-date information on aspects essential for understanding the current status of delivery of the 1140 expansion, such as: use and views of different types of ELC; drivers of and barriers to taking up the funded entitlement; views on accessibility, flexibility and quality of funded ELC; and affordability/costs of additional childcare.
• Support analysis of differences in use and views of ELC for different groups of parents and carers, including those living in the most deprived communities, in rural areas, with children with ASN, in different family types (e.g. single adult/ couple) and with different characteristics (e.g. protected characteristics).

The data from this research feeds into the overall evaluation of the expansion of funded hours, providing understanding of the achievement of both intermediate and long-term outcomes that will help identify any issues and support policy development.

Research design

To address the research aims and objectives, ScotCen conducted both an online survey of parents who have children who have not yet started school, and in-depth interviews with parents who had completed the survey^[34]. The online survey was conducted between 23 April and 29 May 2025 and received 7,589^[35] responses. Interviews with 33 parents and carers took place between 7 May and 30 June 2025.

To ensure the research was designed and implemented in an ethical manner, an application was submitted to the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) Research Ethics Committee (REC). This included setting out the steps taken to ensure the research was accessible to participants with a range of needs. The NatCen REC adheres to the Scottish Government’s social research ethical guidance, as well as those held by the Social Research Association (SRA) and the Market Research Society (MRS). Ethical approval for the research was granted by the NatCen REC on 4th March 2025.

Survey of parents and carers

Questionnaire

The web questionnaire was developed in collaboration with the Scottish Government. To enable comparisons with earlier data, the survey questionnaire was largely based on the one used in 2022. However, it also included several new and amended questions to improve questions where relevant and address the specific aims and objectives of this research. The survey took around 20 minutes to complete. At the end of the survey respondents could opt-in to a prize draw to win one of eight £100 vouchers. They could also opt-in to be contacted to take part in a qualitative interview.

Sampling and recruitment

Scoping for the 2022 ELC parent survey concluded that there was no readily accessible sampling frame with contact details available of parents eligible to take part, which is required for random probability sampling. It was therefore agreed that, in line with the approach taken in 2022, a non-probability sampling approach should be used again in 2025. This involved contacting parents and carers through ELC settings and a range of other intermediaries. Unlike with random probability samples, potential respondents to non-probability surveys are not all equally likely to take part. The characteristics of parents and carers who participated in the survey can be found in Appendix B. Multiple communications about the survey were shared with all eligible^[36] childcare providers and with an agreed list of third sector intermediaries with the aim of maximising the reach of the survey to as many parents as possible.

An email with Scottish Government endorsement was sent to the ELC lead in each local authority (LA) in March 2025 to introduce the research and to ask for their support in promoting the survey to all local ELC providers. LA leads were asked to contact the ELC providers in their area so that they were aware of the research in advance of ScotCen contacting providers directly with more detail on the project. All ELC providers were sent an email with hyperlinks to text to share with parents, inviting them to take part in the survey. The text provided an overview of the study, the web survey hyperlink and a hyperlink to a participant information page. ELC providers were asked to share the invitation from 23 April. The survey took place during a similar time period as the 2022 survey^[37].

To reach parents who may be less likely to be reached via LA providers, ScotCen also distributed the survey via intermediaries and third sector organisations who work directly with families with pre-school-age children. These included: Care and Learning Alliance, National Day Nurseries Association, the Scottish Childminding Association and the Craighalbert Centre.

One week after the first invitation was issued, ELC providers, intermediaries and third sector organisations were sent a first reminder email. After a further eight days, a second reminder email was issued. To increase response, fieldwork was extended by a week from the originally planned dates and a final reminder was sent out one week after the second reminder to inform parents of the new survey closing date and to further encourage participation. The survey closed at midnight on 29 May 2025.

Weighting

While non-probability sampling helps to reach as many respondents as possible, it can also lead to some groups being over- or under-represented. As observed in 2022, responses were again lower from families in large urban areas. Therefore, as with the previous survey in 2022, a single calibration was applied to make the responding sample more representative of the population based on urban-rural groupings. The population urban-rural groupings were derived from Care Inspectorate records (MDSF). These records were filtered to align as closely as possible with the survey’s sampling frame. Each childcare setting’s postcode was matched to its urban-rural classification and weighted by the number of childcare places available. These were then aggregated to produce a population estimate. This estimate was based on the location of childcare settings, rather than parents’ home addresses, as the latter was not available for the whole population of interest^[38]. The population and responding sample profile were subsequently used to calculate the calibration factors (see Table A1). About 15% of cases were missing urban-rural classification and since no auxiliary information was available to support more complex imputation, the mean weight of 1 was assigned to each of these cases.

Note: the unweighted response is based on the urban/rural classification derived from the respondent’s home postcode provided in the survey. The population share is based on the urban/rural classification derived from the postcode of childcare providers that were invited to take part in the survey.

In this study, the total number of respondents was 7,589. After the necessary weighting adjustments were applied, the effective sample size – which reflects the statistical power of the data^[39] – was calculated to be approximately 7,002. This indicates a weighting efficiency of 92%, which is considered high. This suggests that the weighting process helped correct for imbalances in the sample without significantly compromising the overall reliability or precision of the results.

Interviews with parents and carers

Sampling and recruitment

The mode of recruitment for the in-depth interviews with parents was asking those who had completed the survey to provide their contact details if they consented to take part in a follow-up interview about their experiences of ELC. Due to the large response to the survey and significant interest in taking part in a qualitative interview, it was possible to sample on several key criteria of interest, including: family composition (number of parents in the household); child age; use of funded ELC (using full-entitlement, partial-use of entitlement and no use of entitlement); level of satisfaction with ELC provision in terms of flexibility, ASN support, and quality; ethnicity; SIMD; and family size. The experience of parents with children with ASN and those who were dissatisfied with the flexibility of ASN was of particular interest to the Scottish Government and, therefore, a particular focus for sampling. Participant demographics can be found in Appendix B.

Selected individuals who provided their contact details were sent an email to invite them to participate in an interview. A list of organisations who offer a range of support was also attached to the invitation. Those interested in proceeding to interview agreed a suitable time and date for the interview to take place. Parents who took part in an interview were given the choice of a telephone or video interview. All participants were given a £30 Love2Shop voucher as a thank you for their time and for sharing their experiences with the study. With the consent of participants, interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for ease of analysis.

Research materials

The interview participant information sheet and topic guide were developed in consultation with and agreed with the Scottish Government. All participant materials were designed and formatted to be accessible to a wide range of participants. The interview topic guide covered a range of subjects, including use of childcare, awareness and use of funded hours, experience of ELC providers (both funded and paid-for) in terms of flexibility, accessibility, quality and affordability, impact of use of funded hours, and suggested improvements to ELC provision. The interviews aimed to provide context to survey findings and explore the impact of funded ELC on families in more detail.

Analysis

All analysis of the survey data was undertaken in SPSS using the weighted data. Frequencies and crosstabulations were conducted, with the crosstabulations displaying overall results for key measures and for specific subgroups, allowing comparison between them. As the sample were self-selecting it was not possible to provide statistically precise margins of error or significance testing. Apparent differences between subgroups have been reported where noteworthy throughout but have not been tested for statistical significance^[40]. For the interpretation of subgroup differences it is useful to refer to the accompanying Supplementary Tables which are referenced throughout the report. The following subgroups were explored:

• Household composition (single-parent or two-parent household)
• Parental employment (two parents, one parent or no parent in work)
• Household income (five income categories, excluding prefer not to say)
• Age of respondent (under 25, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40+)
• SIMD (20% most deprived areas compared with 80% least deprived areas)
• English language (parents with English as an additional language compared with parents with English as a first language)
• Number of children (aged under 18) (one, two or three or more children)
• Parent long-term health condition (parents with or without long-term health conditions)
• Child with additional support needs (ASN) (households with or without at least one child under the age of six with ASN)
• Urban-rural classification (Accessible and remote binary)

Other subgroup analysis is possible but was out of scope for this project.

This report includes tables and charts to display survey data. Not applicable (n/a) responses are not set out in the data included in the report. A full set of data tables are available that include these responses where applicable. Figures presented within the report on responses to individual questions, or within sub-groups, may sometimes add up to 99% or 101% due to rounding. The 2025 figures including decimal places are presented in the Supplementary Tables.

The transcribed qualitative interview data were managed and analysed using qualitative analysis software NVivo. All qualitative data were anonymised for analysis and reporting. An analytical framework was set up and piloted in NVivo. Once the framework was finalised, each transcript was coded, so that all the data on a particular theme could be viewed together. Multiple researchers were involved in coding and regular meetings were held to cross-check analyses. Through reviewing the coded data, the full range of views were systematically mapped, and the accounts of different participants compared and contrasted.

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of this study was its mixed method design. Combining a survey with follow-up qualitative research enabled this project to capture more nuanced and in-depth information on parental experiences and views of ELC. The survey provided high-level data from parents across Scotland, while the interviews captured rich, in-depth data which provide insights into parents’ experiences. Furthermore, a large achieved sample size from the survey enabled analysis by a variety of subgroups. The recruitment approach, particularly engaging support from third sector organisations and intermediaries, helped achieve a diverse sample. This allowed a deeper exploration of the experiences of, and impact on, specific subgroups of interest. This also enabled further exploration of a range of experiences and perspectives in the qualitative interviews.

The main limitation to this study is the non-probability sampling approach that was used due to the absence of a sample frame for all eligible parents. Unlike probability sampling, non-probability approaches do not allow for calculation of sampling errors. This limits understanding of sample bias and representativeness and undermines the ability to generalise findings to the broader population of interest. Whilst this approach was consistent with the 2022 survey and thus allowed changes over time to be explored, we cannot calculate whether apparent differences between subgroups or changes since 2022 are statistically significant. In other words, it is not possible to assess the extent to which the differences observed are likely to reflect real differences in the population of eligible parents rather than simply among those who took part in the surveys each time.