Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: final report

Executive Summary

Background and context

From August 2021 the entitlement to funded early learning and childcare (ELC) in Scotland increased from 600 to 1140 hours per year for all three- and four-year-olds and for eligible two-year-olds. This means families can access up to 30 hours of funded ELC per week in term time, or around 22 hours spread across the year. Two-year-old children are currently eligible for funded ELC if they are care-experienced or have a parent who is, or if a parent receives qualifying benefits. The expansion of funded ELC aimed to improve children's development, increase parents and carers' (from here on in referred to as 'parents' for brevity) opportunities for work, study, or training, and improve family wellbeing.

The ELC Expansion Evaluation Strategy set out Scottish Government’s plans to evaluate the impact of the expansion of funded ELC from 600 to 1140 hours on:

• ‘intermediate’ outcomes related to accessibility, flexibility, affordability, quality, and uptake of funded ELC
• the aims or ‘high level’ outcomes for children, parents and families, and
• the long-term economic costs and benefits.

The evaluation approach is framed by a logic model and uses data from various sources, including the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare (SSELC). This report brings together data from across the six phases of the SSELC to consider some key questions about the impact of the expansion of funded ELC in Scotland. The 2018-2025 National Outcomes Evaluation Report, published alongside this report, summarises and synthesises key findings from across all the strands of the outcomes evaluation to reach conclusions on the impact of the ELC expansion.

The Strategic Childcare Plan 2022 to 2026 restated the aims of the ELC expansion, but also recognised the significant pressures the COVID-19 pandemic and cost-of-living crisis have placed on ELC providers and families. While ELC could be expected to mitigate some of the negative impacts of the pandemic for children and families, the medium- and long-term impacts of the public health measures on the outcomes the ELC expansion seeks to influence are not yet known.

About the SSELC

The SSELC collected data between 2018 and 2024 from children and parents, with the aim to measure and compare outcomes before and after the expansion. Phases 1 to 3 (2018-19) collected baseline data on samples of children and their parents accessing up to 600 hours of funded ELC. During 2023-24, Phases 4 to 6 of the SSELC collected ‘post-expansion’ data on samples of children and their parents accessing up to 1140 hours of funded ELC. The SSELC did not include children who were not accessing any funded ELC.

600 hours - baseline

‘Eligible 2s at age two’, Phase 1 – November 2018

• Baseline data collected on eligible two-year-olds as they began ELC

‘ELC Leavers’, Phase 2 – May/June 2019

• Baseline data collected on four- and five-year-olds as they leave ELC to begin primary 1

Three-year-olds, Phase 3 – November 2019

• Follow-up with Eligible 2s at age three after one year in ELC (Phase 1)
• Baseline data collected on three-year-olds as they begin ELC

1140 hours – post-expansion

‘Eligible 2s at age two’, Phase 4 – November 2023

• Data collected on eligible two-year-olds as they begin ELC

‘ELC Leavers’, Phase 5 – May/June 2024

• Data collected on four- and five-year-olds as they leave ELC to begin primary 1

Three-year-olds, Phase 6 – November 2024

• Follow-up with Eligible 2s at age three after one year in ELC (Phase 4)
• Data collected on three-year-olds as they begin ELC

Participants were recruited via local authority, private and voluntary sector group ELC settings across most local authorities. Children who were eligible for funded ELC at age two (‘Eligible 2s’) were surveyed at both age two and age three (Phases 1, 3, 4 and 6 – see box below). This allowed comparison of the change in outcomes after a year of funded ELC for those receiving 600 hours, pre-expansion, with those receiving 1140 hours, post-expansion. Phases 3 and 6 also collected data on a nationally representative sample of all three-year-olds, as a comparison (the ‘Comparator 3s’). Phases 2 and 5 surveyed four- and five-year-olds about to leave ELC (the ‘ELC Leavers’).

The SSELC comprised three components to measure child and parent outcomes:

1. an assessment of sampled children’s development by their ELC keyworker

2. a survey of the parents of sampled children

3. observations by Care Inspectorate staff of the quality of experience within ELC settings attended by sampled children.

A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the SSELC findings. The SSELC focuses on the difference that the increase in the number of hours of funded ELC has made – as opposed to the impact of ELC in general. The design as a largely before-and-after study means that any changes observed in the outcomes that the expansion of funded ELC is seeking to improve cannot be directly attributed to this policy. The study is not able to tell us what any changes in these outcomes would have been in the absence of the ELC expansion. Nor is it able to compare outcomes for children who received the 1140 hours with a control group who did not, as uptake of funded ELC has been near universal since before the expansion.

Key findings – Use of ELC and childcare

Post-expansion, most children in the sample were receiving their increased allocation of funded hours. Further, fewer families were paying for additional hours, and the average number of additional hours paid for decreased.

• Pre-expansion, ELC Leavers (see box above) received an average of 15.6 hours per week of funded ELC from their main ELC setting. Post-expansion this had increased to 26.3 hours a week. (The weekly average includes both families using the hours across the whole year and in term-time only.)
• Similar increases were seen for the Eligible 2s at age three and Comparator 3s.
• Following the expansion, the proportion of families of ELC Leavers paying for additional hours at their main setting fell from 28% to 20%. The proportion paying for additional hours at another ELC setting also fell, from 15% to 10%.
• The average number of additional hours of ELC paid for by parents at the main setting fell from 13.8 to 10.1 per week.
  • All income groups made savings post-expansion, but it was the lowest income group who proportionally made the largest savings, as they paid for less than a quarter of the hours they had done pre-expansion, compared with just over half the hours for other income groups.

The proportion of ELC Leavers using informal childcare, predominantly grandparents, fell from 39% to 30% post-expansion. This was most noticeable in the lowest income group, where the fall was from 24% to 9%, compared with 44% to 33% in other income groups.

The total amount of formal ELC used by families of ELC Leavers increased by 8 hours a week on average, from 22.2 hours pre-expansion (16.5 hours of funded ELC and 5.7 of unfunded) to 30.3 post-expansion (27.3 hours of funded ELC and 3.0 hours of unfunded). This underlines that some families who would have paid for additional ELC in the absence of the expansion have instead used only the additional hours of funded ELC. For these children, we may not expect to see any change in child outcomes due to the expansion of funded ELC.

Key findings – children’s outcomes

Summary findings on children’s health and wellbeing, including cognitive and language development and social, behavioural and emotional development are presented here for the different groups of children described above.

Overall, the SSELC provides limited evidence to date for progress on the child outcomes that the ELC expansion was seeking to improve. The strongest evidence for progression is in relation to social, behavioural and emotional development for children who were eligible for funded ELC at age two.

These findings are broadly consistent with data from multiple other sources that have observed the worsening of children’s development outcomes across Scotland and the rest of the UK over this period. For example, evidence from a Public Health Scotland report on speech and language development using child health review data highlights a rise in developmental concerns. Similarly, findings from a report into behaviour in Scottish schools noted delays in social development and increases in disruptive behaviour, linking these to the pandemic. The findings have to be viewed in the context of COVID-19 and the associated protective public health measures, and other societal changes around this time.

Cognitive and language development

The SSELC provides no evidence to date of progress on outcomes related to children’s cognitive and language development that the expansion of funded ELC was seeking to improve.^[1]

• The proportion of ELC Leavers whose communication skills were identified as on schedule (i.e. of a level that might be expected for their age) post-expansion (82%) was lower than pre-expansion (88%).
• For those who were eligible for funded ELC at age two (the Eligible 2s), communication skills were measured at both age two and age three. Pre-expansion, 46% were on schedule at age two and 50% at age three. Post-expansion figures were similar: 40% at age two and 48% at age three.
• Before the expansion, 50% of Eligible 2s at age three and 67% of Comparator 3s were on schedule for communication skills. After the expansion, the gap remained similar (49% of Eligible 2s and 63% of Comparator 3s).
• The proportion of ELC Leavers whose problem-solving skills were on schedule did not change post-expansion (89% pre- and 88% post-expansion).
• The size of the change on this measure was similar for the Eligible 2s following a year of funded ELC (18 percentage points higher after a year pre-expansion and 16 higher post-expansion).
• There was also no closing or widening of the gap between the Eligible 2s and the Comparator 3s.

Social, behavioural and emotional development

The SSELC surveys provide mixed evidence on social, behavioural and emotional development. While they provide no evidence of a positive change for ELC Leavers to date, they demonstrate a positive association between the expansion of funded ELC and the social, behavioural and emotional development of eligible two-year-olds.

• The proportion of ELC Leavers recorded as having few or no social, behavioural and emotional difficulties^[2] has decreased since the expansion of funded ELC, from 85% to 78%.
• For the Eligible 2s, there was a large improvement post-expansion in social, behavioural and emotional development following a year of funded ELC, to the point that there was no difference between the Eligible 2s at age three and the Comparator 3s. Pre-expansion, the percentage of Eligible 2s with few or no difficulties increased from 44% to 58% after a year of ELC. Post-expansion it increased from 41% to 62%.

The poverty-related development gap

The SSELC surveys provide no evidence for a closing of the poverty-related gap in child development outcomes since the expansion of funded ELC. Multiple reports suggest that the impact of the pandemic, compounded by the cost-of-living crisis, was felt to a greater extent by low-income families.

For the purposes of this study, the poverty-related development gap was defined both in terms of area deprivation and household income, and compared the most disadvantaged quintile (20%) with those in the four less disadvantaged quintiles.

For the ELC Leavers, the gap was examined in relation to multiple outcomes measuring cognitive and language development and social, behavioural and emotional development. While the gap appeared to widen on several of the measures, the changes in magnitude tended not to be statistically significant. The only significant change was in relation to ‘hyperactivity / inattention’, which saw an increase in problems for children from low-income families compared with children from other households.

Factors associated with being on schedule in development

Analysis was carried out to look in more detail at what other factors made it more likely for ELC Leavers to be largely on schedule in their development.

• Factors associated with being largely on schedule included the child being a girl, the child being older, the parent respondent having a degree, the parent respondent being in work or training, and the family paying for additional hours at the ELC setting.
• Factors associated with not being on schedule to this extent included the parent respondent having no formal qualifications, the household being in the lowest income quintile, the parent respondent being from a non-white ethnic group, the child having a long-term health condition, and the child attending a setting with a low environment rating.

When we looked specifically at those who used only their funded hours, differences between children from low-income households and children from other households in their likelihood of being on schedule were reduced.

Key findings – parent and family outcomes

The SSELC provides evidence of increased maternal participation in work, training or study over the period covered by the expansion of funded ELC. For other parent and family outcomes, the data largely showed no change over the same time period or a slight worsening of outcomes. As with the child outcomes, all the findings have to be considered in the context of COVID-19 and other societal changes over this time.

Mothers’ ability to work, train or study

There is clear evidence of an increase in the proportion of mothers/female carers of children receiving funded ELC who were in employment, training or full-time education since the expansion of funded ELC. (From here on, ‘mothers’ is used to refer to mothers and female carers, for brevity). This increase was during a period of high employment rates and substantial change in the labour market (including the impacts of the pandemic and increased home working). However, the employment rate of all women aged 16 to 64 in Scotland remained relatively constant over the same period. This was also the case for the employment rate of women of similar ages to most of those using funded ELC (e.g. age 25-34 and 35-49).

• For mothers of ELC Leavers, the proportion in work, training or full-time education increased from 76% pre-expansion to 84% post-expansion.
• The proportion in employment increased from 69% to 78% and in full-time employment increased, from 29% to 37%.
• The proportion of those in employment also increased for most subgroups examined. For example, employment rose for mothers across all income brackets.
  • For the lowest income group, the proportion in work increased from 41% pre-expansion to 53% post-expansion. The proportion in full-time work remained at 27% of those in work.
  • For higher income groups, the proportion in work increased from 79% to 83%. The proportion in full-time employment increasing from 43% to 51% of those in work.

Parental health and mental wellbeing

The SSELC data provide no evidence for an improvement in parental wellbeing since the expansion of funded ELC from 600 to 1140 hours. This is in line with data from the Scottish Health Survey, which shows that average mental wellbeing for all adults has not returned to pre-pandemic levels.

• For the parents of the ELC Leavers, life satisfaction did not change significantly, while, on average, mental wellbeing got worse over the period from before to after the expansion.^[3]
• For parents of the Eligible 2s and the Comparator 3s, there was no overall change since the expansion of funded ELC in mental wellbeing or life satisfaction.

Parental confidence and capacity

The SSELC data provide little evidence to date of progress in outcomes related to a number of elements of ‘family wellbeing’ that the expansion of funded ELC was seeking to improve.^[4] These include: parental confidence and capacity in engaging with their child’s learning, in enhancing the home environment, and in their own abilities as a parent; support with childcare from family and friends; and the bond between parent and child.

• Among the parents of ELC Leavers, there was a decline, post-expansion, in the proportion assessing themselves as always coping really well or coping pretty well most of the time, from 75% to 70%.
• Other items considered within this topic showed no change.

Conclusion

Overall, the evidence from the SSELC is aligned to the wider evidence base on child outcomes in the post-pandemic period. For example, the decrease in the proportion of ELC Leavers meeting developmental milestones can also be seen in child health review data. However, for the Eligible 2s, a notable difference was observed that showed a positive association between the expansion of funded ELC and their social, behavioural and emotional development.

In terms of parental and family wellbeing, the SSELC identified few changes. There was a fall in parental wellbeing post-expansion, however, which is in line with findings from other surveys for all adults over the same period.

What is difficult to disentangle is whether the increase in ELC has had a mitigating effect on child development outcomes and parental wellbeing. The pandemic and associated public health measures, and the cost-of-living crisis undoubtedly affected families. The data provide evidence of associations, not causation, and cannot tell us whether outcomes would have been different in the absence of the expansion.

Labour market statistics show that employment rates for women remained relatively constant between 2019 and 2024. The SSELC data, on the contrary, show an increase in the proportion of mothers of children receiving funded ELC in work, study or training post-expansion. Those from the lowest-income households saw a large increase in employment. Those in higher-income households saw an increase in the proportion in full-time roles. These findings, however, still have to be considered in the context of the economic situation and changing employment patterns post-pandemic.

One thing the study has not been able to tell us is how the expansion of funded ELC will affect parents and children in the future. If some of the findings on children’s development are a result of the pandemic or challenges with the implementation of the expansion, such as there not being enough experienced staff available, then we may expect to see these disappear or even reverse in the years to come. Changes in relation to employment opportunities are also dependent on the economy and labour market as a whole. Given some of the issues identified in disentangling the effects of the expansion from those of the pandemic, further evaluation may be required to understand the full impact of the expansion of funded ELC in Scotland.