School age childcare - new legal definition: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

The Scottish Government recognises that flexible, accessible and affordable childcare is vital to giving children the best possible start in life, in supporting families, and to ensuring that parents and carers, particularly women, are supported to work, train and study. In doing so, childcare plays a critical role in delivering on the national priorities of eradicating child poverty, and growing the economy. The current legal framework groups school age childcare (SACC) with early learning and childcare (ELC) under a single definition, the ‘daycare of children’. This has become increasingly problematic for several reasons, as SACC differs significantly from ELC in purpose, delivery, and operating hours.

There is also a perception that current regulations lack flexibility for SACC services. A feasibility study undertaken by the Scottish Government and the Care Inspectorate identified regulatory barriers as a key issue affecting service sustainability. SACC has experienced workforce pressures and declining provision with fewer registered services over time.

In response to this, the Scottish Government is proposing to introduce a new legal definition for SACC. The aim of introducing this new definition is to help improve how the sector is recognised and create the opportunity to establish regulatory changes to better meet the needs of children, families and providers. The changes to regulation would apply to services registered under the new School Age Childcare definition. They do not apply to ELC-only providers or childminders.

A public consultation on proposals to create a new legal definition for school age childcare ran from 20 February 2026 to 18 May 2026. Across 4 questions, the consultation sought stakeholders’ views on the Scottish Government’s proposed approach. The consultation focused on the following proposals:

• Inclusion of ‘play’ in the purpose of the definition.
• Age ranges that should be used to define SACC.
• Inclusion of an hour-based exemption for the regulation of certain services.
• Consideration of separate registrations for services providing both SACC and ELC.

The consultation also included a section on impact assessments. Responses to the impact assessment section will be analysed independently and are not included in this report.

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, or of those with an interest in the topic.

Respondent profile

In total, 278 consultation responses were received^[1]. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 173 responses to the consultation; the remaining 105 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Individuals were asked to select from a list the local authority area they are in. Responses were received by individuals from 29 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities, with the largest number of responses received from the following areas: Glasgow City Council (22), Fife Council (14), Aberdeen City Council (13), City of Edinburgh Council (12) and Aberdeenshire Council (11). A full breakdown is provided in Appendix B.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included three closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the closed question results based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 278 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• In a few instances where a response received via email contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Where differences between the views of different types of respondents were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted, then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.
• Some respondents may not have fully read or engaged with the consultation paper, leading to answers which do not directly address the questions or comments which suggest respondents have misinterpreted the question or misunderstood the nature of the proposed changes. While all comments have been included in the analysis and all themes presented in this report, we focus on those directly answering each question.
• Throughout the consultation, respondents often referred to school age childcare by a range of terms, such as ‘out of school care’ and ‘wraparound care’. Where these terms are included, they should all be understood as meaning ‘school age childcare’.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 50 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 30 and 49 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 10 and 29 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, fewer than 10 respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. This does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme, given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents.