Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: Phase 6

Changes in outcomes for Eligible 2s and their parents between Phase 4 and Phase 6

Analysis presented in this section is based on the group of children for whom valid responses were provided at both Phase 4 and Phase 6 (278 children when keyworker data is used, for the analysis of ASQ and SDQ scores; or 137 when parent questionnaire data is used, for the analysis of parent outcomes as well as most other child outcomes). The children were aged two at Phase 4 and aged three at Phase 6. The children included in the analysis presented here were all eligible for (and received) funded ELC provision at age two. The sample sizes are low for this analysis (see Methods section) and caution should be taken when interpreting the findings. However, changes observed can be assumed as definite changes for this cohort of children, rather than due to a change in the composition of the sample between phases.

Figures for Phase 4 are likely to differ from those previously published in the Phase 4 report because here the sample has been restricted to those children with data at both phases. For the same reason, figures for Phase 6 are likely to differ from those included in Section 5, which compares outcomes for the Eligible 2s at age three and the Comparator 3s.

Child health and development

Child general health and long-term conditions

Between Phase 4 (aged two) and Phase 6 (aged three), there was no change in the general health of the children. At both phases, most were in ‘very good’ or ‘good’ health (95% at age two and 96% at age three). At age two, 5% were in ‘fair’ health and none were in ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ health. At age three, 3% were in ‘fair’ health and 1% were in ‘bad’ health.

Over the course of a year, there was no change in the proportion of children with a longstanding illness or health condition: 18% at age two and 21% at age three. At both age two and age three there was no difference in the percentage of children with an illness or health condition that limited activities (13% at age two and 15% at age three).

Speech and language development

Prevalence of parents noting concerns about how their child talked or what they understood did not change following a year of ELC provision. At both age two and three, around three quarters of parents reported no concerns about how the child talked (73% at age two and 72% at age three), while eight in ten said they had no concerns about what the child understood (80% at age two and 81% at age three).

Most parents who did not have concerns over the way their child talks or what they understand at age two also did not have concerns when their child was three (88% for how their child talks and 95% for what their child understands). Over three-fifths (63%) of parents had concerns over the way their child talks and 32% had concerns about what their child understands at both age two and age three. Only 4% of those who had no concerns about the way their child talks at age two had concerns at age three.

There was no change in the proportion of children receiving specific support for speech and language development from the setting (11% at age two and 10% at age three). Only 6% of children who did not receive specific support when aged two received specific support at age three.

Ages and Stages Questionnaire

Figure 4.1 shows the proportion of children in each ASQ domain at both age two and age three whose development was recorded as being on schedule, where monitoring was suggested and where further assessment may be needed. Considering the caution that should be applied in interpreting these changes noted above, on four of the five domains there was an increase in the proportion of children reported as on schedule after one year of funded ELC provision. On these four domains, the increase in the proportion of children on schedule was largest for the personal-social domain (43% at age two and 70% at age three).

Base: All children (keyworker questionnaire, Phase 6, weighted)

While the overall pattern was an increase in the proportion on schedule across most domains for the Eligible 2s after a year of funded ELC, there was movement in both directions. Some children on schedule at age two were no longer recorded as such one year later, while other children recorded as not on schedule when they were age two appeared to now be on schedule at age three. This is demonstrated for the communication domain in Figure 4.2, which shows that three-quarters (77%) of the children who were on schedule at age two were still on schedule at age three. Almost two-thirds (64%) of those for whom it was suggested that further assessment may be needed at age two were recorded as still needing further assessment at age three, while over a quarter (28%) of this group of children were recorded with communication development on schedule at age three.

Base: All children (keyworker questionnaire, Phase 6, weighted)

Differences according to the score of the ELC setting at Phase 4 using the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-3) are also shown in Figure 4.2^[19]. The ITERS tool was used to gather information on the characteristics of ELC settings attended by children in the study. There was evidence of some association between the setting score at Phase 4 and change in ASQ communication score between the phases. Four-fifths (80%) of children in settings with an ITERS score of 5 or above (‘good’) at Phase 4 who were on schedule at age two were still on schedule at age three compared with 67% of children in settings that scored below 5. However, among those who needed further assessment at age two, a higher proportion of those in settings with an ITERS score of below 5 had moved to being ‘on schedule’ by age three (26%) than those in settings with an ITERS score of 5 or above (15%).

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Figure 4.3 shows the SDQ domain scores for Eligible 2s at age two (Phase 4) and age three (Phase 6). As observed at Phase 3, there was a large increase in the proportion of children with close to average scores on the SDQ prosocial domain, from 46% at age two to 70% at age three. This is perhaps not surprising, given the natural development of children’s prosocial behaviour during this period of their life. The proportion of children at age two with a close to average score on the peer relationship problems domain was 42%, rising to 62% at age 3, however, this difference was not statistically significant.

Base: All children (with keyworker observations at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

When looking at SDQ total difficulties score, Figure 4.4 shows that there was movement in both directions. Most children who were close to average at age two remained close to average at age three (84%), while half (53%) of those with a raised or high score at age two scored close to average at age three.

Base: All children (with keyworker observations at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

The association between the summary measure of scores on the ITERS scale from the setting observations at Phase 4 and any change in SDQ total difficulties scores was explored. No differences were observed between settings of different ITERS ratings. For children who scored close to average at age two, most also scored close to average at age three (82% for children at settings rated 5 or above at Phase 4, and 83% for children at settings rated below 5).

Parent outcomes

Economic activity

At both Phases 4 and 6, respondents to the parent questionnaire were provided with a list of economic activities and asked to select all those that applied to both themselves and any partner they live with, in the previous seven days. Table 4.1 shows that there was very little change in the type of economic activity parents engaged in between Phase 4 (when their child was aged two) and Phase 6 (when their child was aged three). There was, for example, no change in the proportion of Eligible 2s’ parents in paid work at Phases 4 (42%) and 6 (44%).

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

As observed in previous SSELC reports, the proportion of partners (mostly men) in paid work was higher than observed for parent respondents themselves (mostly women). There was no change in the proportion of partners in paid work between Phases 4 and 6 (58% and 55%, respectively).

Eligible 2s’ parent respondents were also asked explicitly whether they, or their partner, had experienced any change in their employment since their child started funded ELC (Table 4.2). Half (52%) of parents reported some form of change since Phase 4 (when their child was aged two). The most common response when the children were aged two was that parents had begun looking for work or a change of job (16%) whereas when the children were aged three the most common response was that they had entered or re-entered employment (17%).

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

The proportion of partners experiencing some form of change was lower than for parent respondents, but as shown earlier, partners were more likely than parent respondents to already be in employment. At Phase 4, at the start of the Eligible 2s funded ELC, 7% of partners were reported to have increased usual working hours, this was not reported for any partners at Phase 6 (when their child was aged three).

At Phases 4 and 6, banded hours and mean hours in work were calculated for both Eligible 2s’ parents and their partners. The proportion of parents in the ‘not currently in work’ category did not change between Phase 4 (when their child was aged two) and Phase 6 (when their child was aged three) (57% and 56%, respectively), however, the proportion of parents working fewer than 16 hours a week declined between phases (from 30% to 14%) (Figure 4.5).

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

The mean number of hours parents worked rose slightly between Phases 4 and 6 from 22.3 hours to 24.2 hours, when those not in work were excluded from the calculation (when those not in work were included, the mean was 21.3 hours at Phase 4 and 25.4 hours at Phase 6). Partners who were in work, worked more hours on average at Phase 6 (when their child was aged three) than Phase 4 (when their child was aged two) (37.3 compared with 33.5).

Parents not in work were also asked the extent to which they agreed that ‘lack of affordable, convenient, good quality childcare’ was one of the main reasons they were not working at the time of taking part. Between Phases 4 (when their child was aged two) and 6 (when their child was aged three) there was no change in the proportion of these parents agreeing with the statement (11% and 14%, respectively) (Figure 4.6). The proportion strongly disagreeing, while higher at Phase 6 (33%) than Phase 4 (18%), was not statistically significant.

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

Effect of ELC on parental time use

Parents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed that they had been able to do a number of things because their child is in ELC. Results for some of the statements are presented in Figure 4.7. Responses were similar when their children were aged two and aged three. The most common responses were that they had been able to think about what they may do in the future (81% agreeing or strongly agreeing at Phase 4, when their child was aged two, and 82% at Phase 6, when their child was aged three) and that they had more time to themselves (71% at Phase 4 agreeing or strongly agreeing and 68% at Phase 6).

There was a difference recorded between the two phases on agreement with the statement “Because my child is in nursery, I have been feeling less stressed” with the proportion of parents who agreed falling from 66% when their child was aged two to 48% by the time their child was aged three. The difference was coupled with an increase in the proportion of parents neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the statement as opposed to any change in disagreement rates.

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

Parental general health and wellbeing

At both phases, Eligible 2s’ parents were asked how they perceived their health to be in general (Figure 4.8). The proportion reporting their health was either very good or good was similar at both phases (68% at Phase 4 and 66% at Phase 6). The proportion of parents who perceived their health to be either bad or very bad dropped from 11% at Phase 4 to 3% at Phase 6.

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

Using SWEMWBS^[20] to assess mental wellbeing, mean scores for parents were the same for both phases (22.9).

Parents were asked to score how satisfied they were with their life nowadays on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being extremely dissatisfied and 10 being extremely satisfied. Average life satisfaction scores were similar between Phases 4 (when their child was aged two) and 6 (when their child was aged three) (7.5 and 7.4 respectively). Around a quarter had a score of 9 or 10 (27% at Phase 4 and at Phase 6).

Parental confidence and capacity and home environment

Respondents to the parent questionnaire were asked how they were coping as a parent. At Phase 4 (when their child was aged two) around six in ten (62%) reported coping really or pretty well, not statistically significantly different compared with the 55% reported at Phase 6 (when their child was aged three). At Phase 4, only 2% of parents reported not coping very well most of the time, at Phase 6 this was 7%. Eligible 2s’ parents were also asked how they felt about the amount of support or help with childcare they received from family or friends living outside of their household. There was little change between Phases 4 and 6, with the majority of parents feeling they got enough support (73% at Phase 4, when their child was aged two, and 65% at Phase 6, when their child was three). The proportion reporting not needing any support was not statistically significantly different (4% at Phase 4 and 12% at Phase 6).

Figure 4.9 shows the findings of the home environment measure, the Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS). This scale aims to assess the level of calmness and order in the household and consists of four questions. The majority of households at Phase 4 and Phase 6 agreed that “The atmosphere in our home is calm” (67% and 69%, respectively) and that “First thing in the day, we have a regular routine at home” (83% and 87%, respectively). Similarly at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, the majority of households disagreed that “It’s really disorganised in our home” (68% and 69%, respectively) and that “You can’t really hear yourself think in our home” (55% and 54%, respectively).

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)

Figure 4.10 shows the number of days in the last seven that parents reported their child had spent on different activities at home. The most common activity to do daily was reciting nursery rhymes or singing songs (66% at Phase 4, when their child was aged two, and 72% at Phase 6, when their child was aged three). The small increase observed between Phases 4 and 6 in the proportion playing at recognising letters, words, numbers or shapes (44% at Phase 4 to 55% at Phase 6) was not statistically significant.

Base: All respondents (with parent questionnaire at both Phase 4 and Phase 6, weighted)