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

2 Methodology

2.1 Research aims and objectives

The overarching aim of this research was to provide up-to-date information on parents’ use of, views about, and experiences with, ELC, particularly funded ELC, 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. A key aim was to draw out any relevant comparisons with 2022 data, as well as 2018 where possible. The research objectives were to:

• Provide up-to-date information on the current delivery of funded ELC, 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; 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).

In addition, the qualitative research was intended to enable a more in-depth understanding of the experiences of families in relation to funded ELC, with a particular focus on parents of children with ASN. The findings from this research will feed into the overall evaluation of the expansion of funded hours, providing understanding in particular of progress on intermediate outcomes that will help identify any issues and support policy development.

2.2 Research design

To address the research aims and objectives, ScotCen conducted an online survey of 7,589 parents who have children who have not yet started school, and in-depth interviews with 33 parents who had completed the survey^[3]. The online survey was live between 23 April and 29 May 2025. Parent and carer interviews took place between 7 May and 30 June 2025.

Ethical approval for the research was granted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) Research Ethics Committee on 4 March 2025.

2.3 Survey of parents and carers

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 aims and objectives of this research. The survey was designed to take around 20 minutes to complete.

2.3.1 Sampling and recruitment

In line with the approach taken in 2022, a non-probability sampling approach was used which involved contacting parents through ELC settings and a range of intermediaries such as the Scottish Childminding Association^[4]. Multiple communications were shared with all eligible 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, including those who were not accessing ELC. 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.

In line with responses to the 2022 survey, respondents in large urban areas were under-represented in this survey. To address this, calibration weighting was applied to make the responding sample more representative of the population. Since the survey used non-probability sampling, the weighting procedure involved adjusting (‘calibrating’) the sample estimates to align with the proportionate spread of children by urban-rural groupings for ‘day care of children’ services according to the latest data from the Care Inspectorate records.

2.4 Interviews with parents and carers

Interview participants were recruited via the survey. Respondents were asked to provide their contact details if they consented to take part in a follow-up. 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: children with ASN; number of parents in the household; child age; use of funded ELC; 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 ELC provision was of particular interest to the Scottish Government.

Fifteen of the 33 interview participants lived in an area of Scotland classed as remote or rural. Nearly half (n=16) of qualitative participants lived in the 40% most deprived areas of Scotland. Three quarters (n=26) of participants had at least one child with ASN. Around one-half (n=16) of participants also had a child who did not have ASN. Full participant demographics can be found in Appendix B.

Selected individuals were sent an email to invite them to participate in an interview. Those interested in proceeding 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. With the consent of participants, interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.

2.5 Analysis

All analysis of the survey data was undertaken in SPSS using the weighted data. Results have been run 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. Therefore, although apparent differences by household demographics have been reported where relevant throughout, they have not been tested for statistical significance.

All figures mentioned in the text of this report can be found in a set of supplementary Excel tables in the Supporting documents. These also contain some additional data not discussed in this report. Comments regarding the data analysis above and the potential limitations below are applicable to these tables.

The following characteristics were explored in subgroup analysis: household composition (e.g. single- or two-parent), parental employment, household income, age of respondent, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD)^[5], English as an additional language, number of children in the household, children with ASN, remote-accessible classification of place of residence, and parent long-term health conditions.

The transcribed qualitative interview data were managed and analysed using 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.

2.6 Strengths and limitations

The key strengths of this study were its mixed method design and a large achieved survey sample size, which enabled analysis by a variety of participant characteristics. The main limitation to this study is the non-probability sampling approach which does 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. The strengths and limitations of this study are outlined in full in Appendix A along with a more in-depth methodology, including participant demographics.