Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: final report

6. Discussion and Conclusion

The Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare (SSELC) has formed a significant part of the overall evaluation of the expansion of funded ELC in Scotland. It was the chosen vehicle for collecting data on child, parent and family outcomes within the evaluation strategy. It was conceived as a straightforward before and after data collection exercise, with three rounds of surveys before the expansion of funded ELC and three rounds after the expansion had been fully rolled out in all local authorities. What was not anticipated was that a pandemic would temporarily close ELC settings at the point when the expansion was being rolled out and impact children’s and families’ outcomes for some time to come.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected all families across Scotland, whether they experienced illness or not. They were unable to access ELC as well as many other public services. Protective public health measures restricted contact between family and friends, and the way in which many people work changed permanently. During the pandemic, jobs that could be done from home were done from home, and since then the expectation of attending an office five days a week is no longer the norm. Many studies have identified changes in society over the period covered by the SSELC, which have been attributed to the pandemic. Fewer children have been identified as reaching developmental milestones at the expected time. Both academic performance and behaviour in schools have become worse. Among adults, wellbeing fell – and whilst it has begun to improve again, it has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. The findings from the SSELC have to be understood in the context of the period in which the study was undertaken. ELC Leavers in the post-expansion phase of the study were born in the year and three months running up to the first protective public health measures, so the early part of their lives was particularly affected, even if they were able to take up funded ELC at the age of three. The Eligible 2s and Comparator 3s, post-expansion, were born after the end of the restrictions, but that does not mean that the families and society in which they live were as they would have been in the absence of COVID and the associated protective public health measures.

The SSELC surveys were designed to help assess the impact of the expansion of funded ELC from 600 to 1140 hours per year by measuring a number of specific outcomes for children, parents and families pre- and post-expansion. They gathered data on children’s cognitive and language development, their social, behavioural and emotional development, and their health and wellbeing. The surveys collected information about family characteristics, which allow the analysis to identify differences in outcomes for those from low-income households, or living in deprived areas. They asked parents about their employment, their health and wellbeing, activities within the household, and their relationship with their child.

The SSELC surveys have demonstrated several differences in outcomes between children and families receiving funded ELC pre-expansion and post-expansion. It must be borne in mind, though, that we are only seeing evidence of associations, and not causation. The before-and-after design of the SSELC means that any changes observed in outcomes cannot be directly attributed to the expansion of funded ELC. The study cannot tell us what any changes in outcomes would have been in the absence of the ELC expansion. There was no control group of children whose experiences were the same as a trial group save the number of funded hours of ELC they received. The extent to which observed changes are a result of the expansion, the pandemic, or of other factors, cannot be disentangled or quantified.

The longitudinal element of the study, collecting data on the Eligible 2s at both age two and age three allowed us to see the benefits of a year of funded ELC for this group, but the fundamental design was still a comparison of before and after the expansion, so the issues already identified affect this group of children also. In addition, the achieved sample sizes for the Eligible 2s, particularly by the end of the study, were smaller than planned, which means that the bar for being able to identify changes in outcomes for the Eligible 2s, either positive or negative, is very high.

Both pre- and post-expansion, most children were using their allocation of funded hours of ELC. At both time points, some families were purchasing additional hours, either at the main setting or a different one, although this was less common post-expansion. In total, children spent an average of 30 hours a week in ELC post-expansion, eight hours more than pre-expansion. Savings by not spending on ELC post-expansion were proportionally largest for lower-income households, who were paying for less than a quarter of the hours they were pre-expansion, compared with just over half for other income groups. Given these differences, it is clear that some families who would have been prepared to pay for additional hours were no longer doing so following the expansion.

Families were also less likely to use informal childcare post-expansion. Adding up all hours, children spent around 34 hours in ELC or informal childcare post-expansion on average, six hours more than pre-expansion, although there was wide variation in the total amount. Paying for additional hours of ELC or using informal childcare potentially opens up more opportunities for work, study or training, and may well contribute to family wellbeing, but it does reduce the time parents and children spend together. Other research has shown the importance of a child’s experiences at home in the early years on their development. With families having less time together post-expansion, particularly those who use informal childcare or pay for additional hours of ELC, parents may have to work harder in the hours they do have with their children to ensure they get the home life which will allow them to thrive.

We have already noted some of the issues with the before-and-after methodology for the study. The use of informal childcare and unfunded ELC also have to be considered when looking at children’s and parents’ outcomes. It is not as simple as 600 hours versus 1140 hours per year. Instead, there is wide variation between families. Where parents would have been willing to pay for extra hours pre-expansion, but did not do so post-expansion, any effect of the expansion on outcomes is likely to be limited.

The data from SSELC showed an increase in the proportion of ELC Leavers not reaching cognitive and language development milestones on schedule. The pandemic was undoubtedly a factor in this, but we also have to consider the other evidence. The SSELC Phase 5 report looked at the challenges facing setting heads in meeting the expectations of the expansion. While three-quarters (73%) of settings had taken on extra staff, three in five (62%) reported recruiting good quality staff as a challenge, and two in five (39%) said retaining good staff was a challenge. Half (48%) also mentioned staff training as a challenge. The expansion, in combination with the pandemic, has certainly tested the ELC workforce. Some settings were forced to take on extra staff who did not necessarily meet their requirements and were struggling to train them. This means that the experience for children attending ELC may not have been as good as it could have been, although the setting observations carried out by Care Inspectorate staff for the SSELC found no drop in quality following the expansion.

While this report has not looked at the findings from the setting observations carried out by Care Inspectorate staff using either the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-3) or the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-3), previous SSELC reports show an improvement in quality following the expansion on several of the measures included. Around 150 settings were observed at each of Phases 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the SSELC. On the ITERS-3, which focuses on settings with children under the age of three, substantial improvements were noted at Phase 4 (post-expansion) on both the personal care routines subscale and the interaction between staff and children subscale compared with Phase 1 (pre-expansion). On the ECERS-3, which is used in settings with children aged three to five, substantial improvements were also noted on the interaction subscale and the programme structure subscale at Phase 5 (post-expansion) compared with Phase 2 (pre-expansion).

As with cognitive and language development, the SSELC showed an increase in the proportion of ELC Leavers with social, behavioural and emotional difficulties. However, the story for the Eligible 2s was different. The data showed that, both before and after the expansion, the proportion of Eligible 2s with social, behavioural and emotional difficulties was significantly lower when the children were aged three, after a year of funded ELC, than when they were aged two. Further, the decrease in the proportion with difficulties was significantly larger post-expansion than pre-expansion. Small sample sizes mean that we should not overplay this finding. However, this younger group of children, who were more likely to be from low income or vulnerable families, appear to have benefitted in terms of social, behavioural and emotional development from a year in ELC. This was particularly the case post-expansion.

The reason for this difference between the ELC Leavers and the Eligible 2s is not entirely clear. It could be partly to do with when they were born, with the younger group being less directly affected by COVID and the associated protective public health measures, and therefore benefitting more from the expansion. This would imply that, in the absence of the pandemic, findings for the ELC Leavers may have been more positive. Alternatively, it could be to do with Eligible 2s starting from a lower point. Post-expansion, on the SDQ total difficulties measure, 41% were assessed as close to average at age two (i.e. having few difficulties). After a year of funded ELC this had risen to 62%. While this rise was larger than pre-expansion, the proportion close to average remains considerably lower than the 78% of ELC Leavers assessed as close to average post-expansion (down from 85% pre-expansion). It is easier to make ground from a low starting point, and with the small sample size for the Eligible 2s, the apparent gains for this group may be exaggerated. However, the differences seen are statistically significant, so it is worth exploring further whether ELC is benefitting the Eligible 2s more than other children.

The study set out to identify whether there has been a closing of the poverty-related development gap and found no evidence of this. On nearly all the measures considered, the gap remained fairly constant. For one measure for the ELC Leavers, the SDQ hyperactivity and inattention scale, the gap widened, although unusually there was almost no gap pre-expansion between those in the lowest-income group and other children. Most of the children eligible for funded ELC at age two were from low-income households. Hence in considering the success or otherwise of the expansion in closing the poverty-related development gap, this group must also be considered. As noted above, there were apparent gains for this group.

Regression analysis was used to look at some of the factors which made specific outcomes more likely, for both the ELC Leavers and the Eligible 2s. Many of the factors that are already known from other studies to be associated with child outcomes were identified as being important for these two groups. Girls tended to reach developmental milestones earlier than boys; those with well-educated parents did better; those with a long-term health condition did worse. Frequent home learning activities were associated with better outcomes. Of particular interest was the association between the quality of the setting, as rated by the Care Inspectorate Key Questions, and child outcomes. In several of the models, children attending settings with relatively low ratings had worse outcomes than other children. As underlined in the wider research literature on ELC, this highlights the importance of the quality of the setting and ensuring that this is maintained or improved.

Over the period covered by the study, ONS data show that the proportion of women in employment in Scotland remained relatively constant. The SSELC study showed a large increase among mothers of ELC Leavers in both the proportion in work, and the proportion in work, training or full-time education. This was most evident among those in the lowest-income group, with a notable increase in part-time working. At the same time, among those in higher income groups, there was a shift from part-time to full-time working. After a year of funded ELC, mothers of the Eligible 2s were also more likely to be in full-time employment post-expansion. Changes in the proportion in work, study or training among the mothers of the Comparator 3s, who had mostly only recently begun using funded ELC, were also not significant, suggesting that the move into work for mothers often takes a period of time after their child begins ELC.

Increased hours of funded ELC may give many parents more time to take up employment opportunities, but it is probably not the only contributing factor. The expansion of funded ELC took place during a period of high employment rates and substantial change in the labour market. ONS data show that in 2024, 43% of mothers were working from home at least part of the time^[55]. This is much higher than before the pandemic and may be particularly appealing to those with young children. Hybrid working or working from home was even higher for fathers (56%), which could open up opportunities for their partners to go out to work.

Other data collected in the SSELC provides additional information about the increase for the parents of ELC Leavers. The Phase 5 report found that 68% of parents of ELC Leavers agreed that because their child was in nursery they had been able to work or look for work, up from 59% pre-expansion. In these responses, parents are attributing the opportunity to work to their child receiving ELC, so this supports the suggestion that the increase in mothers’ employment is due to the expansion of funded ELC. Similar questions showed that because their child was in nursery, higher proportions said they had been feeling less stressed post-expansion, feeling happier, or been able to think about what they may want to do in the future.

While parents of ELC Leavers may have been more likely post-expansion to report feeling happier because their child was in ELC, mean levels of wellbeing actually fell slightly over the same period, in line with findings from other surveys. The proportion who said they were coping well as parents most or all of the time also fell. This may be related to perceptions of how their child is doing, as well as changes in average wellbeing more generally. Rises in the proportion of ELC Leavers with social, behavioural or emotional difficulties, or failing to reach developmental milestones, could be expected to lead to decreases in the proportion of parents feeling they are coping.

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 not guaranteed to continue. They are dependent on the economy and labour market as a whole. However, these findings demonstrate that provision of funded ELC has reduced some of the barriers to mothers taking up employment.

It has taken seven years to collect the data that has gone into this report, and the findings form an important part of the wider programme of evaluation into the expansion of funded ELC from 600 to 1140 hours per year. This report identifies a number of changes that have taken place over that time period. The ELC Expansion 2018-2025 National Outcomes Evaluation Report, published by Scottish Government alongside this report, summarises and synthesises key findings from across all components of the evaluation programme, including the findings from the SSELC reported here, to reach conclusions on the impact of the ELC expansion over this period. This will include consideration of how changes in the ELC sector and workforce, and in the accessibility, flexibility, affordability, quality and take-up of funded ELC, may have mediated outcomes for children, parents and families.

The longer-term effects of the expansion, however, are yet to be seen. 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.