Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: Phase 6

Executive Summary

Background

This report outlines findings from the sixth, and final, phase of the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare (SSELC). The SSELC surveys, together, form an important part of the evaluation of the expansion of funded early learning and childcare (ELC) in Scotland from 600 to 1140 hours for all three- and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds.

The SSELC has been designed to provide key evidence on whether the expansion of funded ELC has achieved its three intended aims:

1. Children’s development improves and the poverty-related outcomes gap narrows

2. Family wellbeing improves

3. Parents’ opportunities to take up or sustain work, study or training increase.

It does this by measuring outcomes for children and parents receiving some, or all, of the current entitlement of 1140 hours (Phases 4 to 6) and comparing them to those who received the previous entitlement of 600 hours (Phases 1 to 3).

The aims of Phase 6 were to collect data on two groups of three-year-olds:

• Children who had already received a year of funded ELC, because they had been eligible at age two (described in the report as 'Eligible 2s'). Data was also collected about these children one year before, at age two (Phase 4).
• A nationally-representative group of three-year-old children, most of whom began receiving funded ELC at age three – to allow comparisons with the Eligible 2s. (These children are described in the report as ‘Comparator 3s’).

Using this data, this report aims to present any changes for Eligible 2s (and their parents) after a year of funded ELC, as well as discussing how those children and their parents sit in relation to average national outcomes for children aged three.

Methods

Children and their families were recruited via local authority, private and voluntary sector group ELC settings in 30 local authority areas. Childminders were not included. Fieldwork for Phase 6 was conducted between October and December 2024. In total, 289 Eligible 2s and 910 Comparator 3s were included in Phase 6, although not all of these had both keyworker and parent questionnaires.

For both samples of three-year-olds, nearly all the parent questionnaires (89% and 90%) were completed by the child’s mother or a female carer. Therefore, the terms “respondent” or “parent” refer mostly to a mother or main female carer. Half (54%) of Eligible 2s’ households were single adult, compared to 15% of Comparator 3s’ households. At age three, the Eligible 2s sample were more likely than Comparator 3s to be living in deprived areas and in lower income households, which is to be expected given the eligibility criteria for access to funded ELC for two-year-olds.

Key Findings

Use of formal ELC and informal childcare

The mean hours for all childcare used at age three (Phase 6), both formal (e.g. funded and paid-for ELC) and informal (e.g. family or friends), was similar for Eligible 2s at age three and Comparator 3s (28.9 hours per week and 30.5 hours per week, respectively). The average number of weekly funded hours of formal ELC was higher for Eligible 2s at age three than Comparator 3s (27.3 and 25.6, respectively), while mean weekly hours of unfunded ELC was higher for Comparator 3s (3.5 hours, compared with 0.9 hours for Eligible 2s). Eligible 2s at age three were more likely than Comparator 3s to have the full cost of their time spent at their current setting funded (93% and 74%, respectively).

Most parents used no formal ELC other than their current setting (94% of Eligible 2s and 86% of Comparator 3s). Parents of Comparators 3s were more likely than those of Eligible 2s at age three to report using additional informal childcare (33% and 15% respectively). Grandparents were the most common type of additional informal childcare used among all Comparator 3s (32%) and Eligible 2s (12%).

Engagement with ELC setting

Parental engagement with their child’s ELC setting was high, with most parents having visited their child’s room at the setting (95% for Eligible 2s and 90% for Comparator 3s) or talked to a member of staff about their child’s progress (97% and 94%, respectively). Parents of Eligible 2s at age three were more likely than Comparator 3s to have: stayed and played with their child; talked to someone about how to support their child’s learning at home; and received advice or information to support their child’s speech, language and communication development.

Advantages and disadvantages of child being in ELC

The advantages most commonly cited by parents of having a child in ELC were that it had given their child opportunities to interact and socialise with other children (94% for Eligible 2s at age three and 97% for Comparator 3s) and improved their child’s independence and confidence (92% for Eligible 2s and 89% for Comparator 3s). Comparator 3s’ parents were most likely to report that having their child in ELC had enabled them to work, study or train (74% compared with 60% of Eligible 2s’ parents). Those living in the most deprived areas were most likely to report that being in ELC had improved their child’s behaviour (72% for Eligible 2s living in deprived areas, compared with 60% in other areas; and 64% for Comparator 3s in deprived areas, compared with 48% in other areas).

Only a minority of parents reported disadvantages to their child being in ELC, but the most commonly reported ones were that they pick up bad habits/behaviour (9% for Eligible 2s at age three and 10% for Comparator 3s) and that nursery hours were not flexible enough (7% for Eligible 2s and 9% for Comparator 3s).

Changes in outcomes for Eligible 2s between age two and three

This section presents outcomes for eligible two-year-olds at age three, after a year of funded ELC. Outcomes at age three (Phase 6) are compared with those at age two (Phase 4) to explore the impact that attending funded ELC has had on these children. Since response at Phase 4 was lower than anticipated, sample sizes are low for this analysis and caution should be taken when interpreting the findings. However, all changes reported are statistically significant unless otherwise stated.

Child general health, development and long-term conditions

Most Eligible 2s were in ‘good’ or ‘very’ good health at both age two (95%) and age three (96%). There was also no change in the proportion with a longstanding illness or health condition (18% at age two compared with 21% at age three).

At both age two and age three, around three quarters of parents of Eligible 2s reported no concerns about how their child talked (73% and 72%, respectively), and eight in ten had no concerns about what the child understood (80% and 81%, respectively). After a year of funded ELC, there was no change in the proportion of Eligible 2s receiving specific support for speech and language development from the ELC setting (11% at age two and 10% at age three).

The Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), used to identify children at increased risk of developmental difficulties, showed that on four of the five domains, the percentage of Eligible 2s ‘on schedule’ had increased after one year of funded ELC provision^[1]. The increase was largest for the personal-social domain with 43% on schedule at age two and 70% at age three.

On the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a behavioural screening tool, there was an increase in the proportion of children with ‘close to average’ scores on the SDQ pro-social domain (46% age two and 70% at age three)^[2]. This is perhaps not surprising, given the natural development of children’s prosocial behaviour between ages two and three. Looking at SDQ total difficulties scores shows movement in both directions. Most children who were close to average at age two remained close to average at age three (84%), although 16% were given a ‘raised’ or ‘high’ score, suggesting an increase in difficulties. While half (53%) of those with a raised or high score at age two scored close to average at age three.

Parental economic activity

There was little change in the type of economic activity Eligible 2s’ parents engaged in between Phase 4 (when the child was age two) and Phase 6 (when the child was age three). Fewer than half were in paid work at both Phases 4 and 6 (42% and 44%, respectively). The mean number of hours parents worked rose slightly by the time the child was age three, from 22.3 hours to 24.2 hours among those in work.

At both Phases 4 and 6, most parents agreed that because their child was in ELC they had been able to think about what they may do in the future (81% and 82%) and that they had more time to themselves (71% at Phase 4 and 68% at Phase 6).

Parental and family wellbeing

The proportion of Eligible 2s’ parents reporting their health as very good or good was similar at both phases (68% at Phase 4 and 65% at Phase 6). However, there was a decline in parents who rated their health as bad or very bad (from 11% at Phase 4 to 3% at Phase 6).

The most common daily home learning activity was reciting nursery rhymes or singing songs (66% at Phase 4 and 72% at Phase 6). There was an increase over time in the percentage of Eligible 2s playing at recognising letters, words, numbers or shapes every day at home (44% at Phase 4 to 55% at Phase 6).

Comparison of outcomes between Eligible 2s at age three and Comparator 3s

The focus of this section is to compare outcomes for three-year-olds who have already received a year of funded ELC (Eligible 2s at age three) with those for a nationally representative sample of three-year-olds in receipt of funded ELC (Comparator 3s). Making such comparisons allows us to see where those children that received funded ELC at age two sat in relation to average national outcomes at age three. Some figures reported here for Eligible 2s at age three differ slightly from those reported above, as this analysis includes a small number of additional Eligible 2s at age three (see the Methods for more detail).

Child general health, development and long-term conditions

Most parents, in both groups, viewed their child’s general health as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ (92% of Eligible 2s and 96% of Comparator 3s). Eligible 2s at age three were more likely than Comparator 3s to have a longstanding illness or health condition (23% compared with 8%). For those whose children had longstanding conditions, these were more likely to be described as limiting them ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ for Eligible 2s than Comparator 3s (87% and 71%, respectively).

Breastfeeding was more common among the Comparator 3s than Eligible 2s at age three (58% compared with 36%). Sleeping patterns for Eligible 2s and Comparator 3s were similar, with most sleeping 11 hours or more in a 24-hour period (61% of Eligible 2s at age three and 68% of Comparator 3s).

Overall, parents of Eligible 2s at age three were more likely to be concerned about their child’s talking (17%) and understanding (8%) compared with parents of Comparator 3s (4% and 2%, respectively). Among Eligible 2s’ parents, concern about how boys talk was also higher than for girls (25% and 9%, respectively), as was concern about boys’ understanding compared with girls’ (14% and 3%, respectively). Most children did not receive any specific support for speech and language development from their ELC setting (81% for Eligible 2s at age three and 95% for Comparator 3s). Among Comparator 3s, children living in the most deprived areas were most likely to receive such support (14% compared with 1% living in other areas).

The ASQ showed that Comparator 3s were more likely to be on schedule for the communication domain (63% compared with 49% of Eligible 2s); the problem-solving domain (65% for Comparator 3s compared with 52% of Eligible 2s); and the fine motor domain (67% for Comparator 3s compared with 55% of Eligible 2s), compared with Eligible 2s at age three.

With the exception of the gross motor domain, at age three Eligible 2s boys were more likely to need further assessment than Eligible 2s girls across all ASQ domains. Whilst among Comparator 3s, boys were more likely than girls to need further assessment in the communication, fine motor, and problem-solving domains. For both Eligible 2s and Comparators 3s, across all domains, those in the most deprived areas were less likely than those living elsewhere to be on schedule.

Six in ten Eligible 2s at age three and Comparator 3s scored close to average for the SDQ total difficulties (62% and 63%, respectively). SDQ scores for emotional symptoms, peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviours were also similar for Eligible 2s and Comparator 3s. Both Eligible 2s and Comparator 3s girls tended to be more likely than boys in these two groups to score close to average across the domains, with the exception of the emotional symptoms’ domain.

Parental economic activity

Parents of Comparator 3s were much more likely to be in paid work (75%) compared with parents of Eligible 2s at age three (42%) at the time of the survey. The proportion of parents out of work due to long-term sickness or disability was higher among Eligible 2s’ parents (21%) than Comparator 3s’ (3%).

Around half of female (55%) and 44% of male Eligible 2s’ parents were not in work, compared with around one in five (19%) female and 5% of male Comparator 3s’ parents. For both groups, those living in more deprived areas were most likely to not be in work.

When asked about the extent to which a lack of affordable, convenient, good quality childcare was one of the main reasons they were currently not working, 15% of Eligible 2s’ parents and 29% of Comparator 3s’ parents agreed that this was the case. Parents of Eligible 2s at age three were more likely than Comparator 3s’ to report having entered or re-entered education or training since their child started funded ELC (14%, compared with 3%).

Eight in ten parents of Eligible 2s at age three agreed that having their child in nursery meant they had been able to think about what they may do in the future, higher than the 67% of Comparator 3s’ parents reporting this. Conversely, Comparator 3s were most likely to agree that they had been able to work or look for work (62% compared with 49% of Eligible 2s).

Parental and family wellbeing

Comparator 3s’ parents were more likely than Eligible 2s’ at age three to rate their general health as ‘very good’ (39%, compared with 17%). Parents of Eligible 2s at age three were also more likely than those of Comparator 3s to have a long-term health condition (45%, compared with 18%, respectively).

Parents of Eligible 2s at age three were more likely to record a lower-than-average mental wellbeing score compared with Comparator 3s’ parents (35% and 18%, respectively). For both groups, those living in the most deprived areas were the most likely to have lower than average mental wellbeing. Parents were asked to score how satisfied they were with their life nowadays on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being extremely satisfied. Around half (48%) of Eligible 2s’ parents had a score of between 8 and 10 compared with around 7 in 10 (68%) Comparator 3s’ parents.

Among Eligible 2s’ parents, 13% always felt they were coping well as a parent when their child was three, compared with 6% of Comparator 3s’ parents. Around two-thirds of both Eligible 2s’ parents (64%) and Comparator 3s’ parents (67%) felt they received enough support with childcare from family or friends. The majority of parents in both groups described their households as calm (69% of Eligible 2s and 71% of Comparator 3s).

A higher proportion of Comparator 3s’ parents (63%) reported that their child looked at books or stories daily, compared with Eligible 2s’ parents (44%). Similar proportions of Eligible 2s and Comparator 3s engaged in reciting nursery rhymes or singing songs (64% and 65%), recognising letters, words, numbers, or shapes (45% and 42%), and activities involving painting and drawing (24% and 23%).