Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: ELC Leavers (Phase 2) Report - Updated 2021

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)