Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare: Phase 6

Final summary

This report has presented findings from the sixth and final phase of the Scottish Study of Early Learning and Childcare (SSELC). 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, as they became 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 (Comparator 3s), most of whom began receiving funded ELC at age three – to allow comparisons with the Eligible 2s.

The report compared outcomes for Eligible 2s at age two (Phase 4) and age three (Phase 6), as well as outcomes for Eligible 2s at age three with national figures for all three-year-olds (Comparator 3s). At Phase 4, the response for the Eligible 2s group was lower than anticipated, hence fewer statistically significant differences have been identified than would have been expected given a higher response rate.

Half of Eligible 2s’ households were single adult, compared with 13% of Comparator 3s’ households. Eligible 2s at age three were more likely than Comparator 3s to live in deprived areas and be from lower-income households, reflecting eligibility criteria for ELC provision for two-year-olds.

At Phase 6, parents of Eligible 2s at age three and Comparator 3s used a similar number of hours of childcare overall (including formal ELC and informal childcare). However, Eligible 2s received more funded hours and were more likely to have the government cover the full cost of their time at their current ELC setting. While Comparators 3s used more unfunded ELC and were more likely to use additional informal childcare. For both groups, grandparents were the most common form of additional informal childcare. Childminders were the most common form of additional formal childcare, and their use was related to income – with greater use of childminders among those with higher incomes.

Although most parents had engaged with their child’s ELC setting in some way, parents of Eligible 2s at age three were more engaged than parents of Comparator 3s in some key areas related to support for their child. Eligible 2s’ parents were more likely than Comparator 3s’ parents to have talked to someone about how to support their child’s learning at home and to have received advice or information to support their child’s speech, language and communication development. This is probably related to the finding that parents of Eligible 2s expressed more concern about their child's language development, particularly for boys, compared with parents of Comparator 3s.

The vast majority of parents with three-year-olds in funded ELC felt that it had positive benefits for their child(ren), with those living in the most deprived areas the most likely to report that ELC had improved their child’s behaviour. Fewer than one in ten parents felt there were disadvantages to their child being in ELC, with the most common concerns being that their child picked up bad habits or behaviour and that nursery hours were not flexible enough.

To see how outcomes had changed for children after a year of funded ELC for two-year-olds, outcomes were compared for Eligible 2s at age two (Phase 4) and at age three (Phase 6). The ASQ developmental assessment showed that the proportion of Eligible 2s who were ‘on schedule’ in four of the five domains had increased after one year of funded ELC provision. Those in ELC settings with an ITERS score^[22] of 5 or above (‘good’) were more likely to be ‘on schedule’ for communication than those children in settings that scored below 5. The SDQ behavioural assessment total difficulties scores showed an improvement in around half of those who had a raised or high score at age two, as this had moved to a close to average score after one year of funded ELC.

The economic activity of Eligible 2s’ parents showed little change between Phase 4, when their child was two, and Phase 6, when their child was three. Fewer than half were employed at both phases, although the average number of hours worked did rise slightly and the number of parents working fewer than 16 hours decreased.

The proportion of parents of Eligible 2s who rated their own health as good or very good stayed similar. Although fewer parents rated their health as bad or very bad when their child was age three compared with when their child was age two. However, there was a slight decline in mental wellbeing, with more parents of Eligible 2s falling into the low wellbeing category when their child was age three than had done when their child was age two.

Outcomes for Eligible 2s at age three were compared with those for Comparator 3s to see where these children sat in relation to average national outcomes. Most parents perceived their child's overall health positively, although children in the Eligible 2s group were more likely than those in the Comparator 3s group to have long-term illnesses or health conditions, which were also more often described as limiting their activities. Breastfeeding was more prevalent among Comparator 3s than Eligible 2s children.

The ASQ showed that Comparator 3s children were more likely than Eligible 2s at age three to be on schedule in communication, problem-solving, and fine motor skills. Boys in the Eligible 2s group were more likely than girls to need further assessment in four of the five developmental domains, a trend also observed among Comparator 3s boys but in fewer domains. Children in deprived areas from both groups were less likely to be on track developmentally.

The SDQ behavioural assessments indicated that a majority of Eligible 2s at age three and Comparator 3s scored close to average for total difficulties. Scores for emotional symptoms, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behaviours were similar between the two groups, with girls generally scoring closer to average than boys across most domains except for emotional symptoms.

Comparator 3s’ parents were more likely to be employed compared with parents of Eligible 2s at age three, who had a higher rate of unemployment due to long-term sickness or disability. Over half of parents of Eligible 2s at age three were not working compared with a fifth of Comparator 3s’ parents. In both groups, those in deprived areas were more likely to be unemployed than those living in other areas.

A smaller proportion of non-working Eligible 2s’ parents felt they could start work within two weeks compared with Comparator 3s’ parents. A minority in both groups felt that a lack of affordable, convenient, good quality childcare was a primary reason they were not currently working. Eligible 2s’ parents were also more likely than Comparator 3s’ parents to feel that having their child in nursery allowed them to consider future plans, while Comparator 3s’ parents were more likely to feel that nursery enabled them to work or look for work.

Overall Comparator 3s’ parents reported better health and wellbeing than parents of Eligible 2s at age three. Comparator 3s’ parents were more likely to rate their general health as 'very good' compared with Eligible 2s’ parents, who were also more likely to report having a long-term health condition. Eligible 2s’ parents also had lower mental wellbeing scores than Comparator 3s’ parents. Among both groups, those living in deprived areas were more likely to have lower mental wellbeing scores than those living in other areas.

Given these lower levels of mental wellbeing and general health among parents of Eligible 2s at age three, it is perhaps surprising that they felt they were coping well as parents more often than Comparator 3s’ parents. Those living in deprived areas from both groups were less likely to feel that they were coping well than those living in other areas.