thrive at five
Comparative child development
at school-entry age
Save the Children works in more than 120 countries.
We save children’s lives. We fight for their rights.
We help them fulfil their potential.
Published by Save the Children 2nd Floor Prospect House 5 Thistle Street Edinburgh EH2 1DF +44 (0)131 527 8210 savethechildren.org.uk First published 2012
© The Save the Children Fund 2012
The Save the Children Fund is a charity registered in England and Wales (213890) and Scotland (SC039570). Registered Company No. 178159
This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale. For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.
Cover photo: Olivia and her mum Michelle take part in Save the Children’s award-winning education programme Family and Schools Together (FAST) in Glasgow. FAST builds stronger relationships between parents, children, teachers and communities to help children like Olivia get the best possible start at school, and in life. (Photo: Sandy Young/Save the Children)
Contents
Executive summary iv
Introduction 1
1 Background 2
2 Findings
53 Conclusions and recommendations 8
Appendices 10
Endnotes 18
Save the Children has used recent research
to study the development of children from
different socio-economic backgrounds when
they start primary school.
1The result is a holistic, population-level measure of child development at school-entry age for children in Scotland across a range of indicators and using a number of different socio-economic characteristics. The findings of this research reveal that children
born into poverty2 are twice as likely as other
children to face developmental difficulties when they enter formal schooling, severely
damaging their future educational achievement and chances of fulfilling their potential.
The research also reveals that children born into
poverty are four times as likely as children from the most affluent backgrounds to have developmental difficulties at this stage.
A glaring gap in developmental health at this young age between children living in poverty and their
peers is evident across all of the developmental areas included in the research – physical, emotional, social, cognitive and communication.
When they start school, children who grow up in poverty are:
• almost twice as likely as other children to have difficulties with their physical development
• twice as likely as other children to face difficulties with their emotional development
• 50% more likely than other children to face difficulties with their social development • 40% more likely than other children to face
difficulties with their cognitive development • twice as likely as other children to face difficulties
with their communication development
The evidence is clear: many children who grow up in poverty in Scotland are starting school at a serious disadvantage to their classmates.
The findings of this research reinforce the need to provide additional support in the early years for children living in poverty.
Children who grow up in poverty are arriving
at primary school with development levels
far behind those of their more affluent peers.
Save the Children commissioned Scotcen Social Research to analyse data from the Growing Up in
Scotland (GUS) study in order to compare the
developmental health of children at school-entry age from different backgrounds. This report draws out some of the key findings of that work with a focus on the differences in development between children who grow up in poverty and their peers.
The analysis has revealed that children from deprived backgrounds are more likely to do significantly worse than other children across a number of key developmental indicators: physical well-being, social skills, emotional health, cognitive ability, and communication skills.
These are all crucial factors in a child’s performance at school and future well-being. There is a direct link between the development gap that emerges in the pre-school years and the later underachievement at school of pupils who grow up in poverty.
Ultimately, the consequences of this developmental gap are found in the lack of future opportunities of children in poverty.
These children are less likely to do well at school, gain good qualifications, and find the well-paid, stable employment required to find a route out of poverty. They are more likely to remain mired in poverty in adulthood, increasing the likelihood that their own children will be born into deprivation.
The Scottish government has made clear
its ambition to make Scotland “the best
place in the world to grow up”.
3Central to
this approach is a focus on the early years,
reflecting the strong evidence that the first
few years of a child’s life are crucial to their
future development and the opportunities
and choices available to them later in life.
This emphasis on the early years is evident in a great deal of government activity, not least the Early Years Framework and the Early Years Task Force and accompanying Change Fund. The government hopes to provide new impetus to this agenda through the proposed Children and Young People Bill, which aims to instigate “a more rapid shift to the early years”.4
Alongside this activity, there are a great deal of measurements, indicators, targets and data relevant to the early years. For instance, we have Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) for each local
authority, Health improvement, Efficiency, Access and Treatment (HEAT) targets in the NHS, and a number of indicators used for assessing the performance of the Scottish government in providing adequate early years support. Separate survey-based data for the early years is also collected via the GUS longitudinal study, funded by the government.
Despite this raft of indicators and information, however, we do not have a single, widely agreed on and easily understood method of measuring overall child development, as noted by Professor Susan Deacon in her early years report for the Scottish government.5 Without such a measure, it will be
difficult to know whether or not the increased political and policy emphasis on the early years is actually delivering improvements in the lives of our children and young people.
COMPARATivE CHilD DEvElOPMENT
AT SCHOOl-ENTRY AGE
Save the Children’s research into comparative child development at school-entry age was developed to help address this gap. it provides the type of ‘big picture’ view of the developmental health of children in Scotland that we currently lack. The instrument brings together child development data from Scotland across a range of areas that have a direct influence on a child’s ability to fulfil their educational potential. The data is gathered around the start of primary school, a key transition stage in a child’s life. Research suggests this is a crucial period in a child’s development where any existing developmental deficiencies can be exposed and often compounded. Children who face developmental difficulties in the early years often fall further behind when they enter school and struggle to catch up.6
The research compares development across socio-economic backgrounds, showing unequivocally that gaps in development between children who grow up in poverty and their peers emerge at an early age. While there is already evidence of this developmental gap, this work enhances and adds nuance to our understanding of the nature of that gap through analysing a number of developmental areas both individually and as a whole. it reinforces existing research that children born into poverty fall behind their peers at a very young age and shows this to be true across a range of indicators.
For policy-makers and practitioners in Scotland, the findings provide a strong evidence base upon which to build and monitor an ambitious and far-reaching early years agenda that cuts across a number of different policy areas. it gives a clear and reliable picture of our starting position for the developmental health of children from different backgrounds across a range of factors that contribute to their future achievements. it also brings those factors together to provide an overall picture of child development at an important transition stage.
1 B A C k GR OUND
The research does, of course, have its limitations. For instance, it does not cover all aspects of a child’s well-being. instead, it focuses on those factors that are most relevant to a child’s capacity to prosper in a school environment. Having said that, educational achievement is clearly an important area of a child’s well-being. The holistic approach the research takes means its findings are relevant to broader discussions around child development.
Although this research focuses on the capacity of children to adapt to school, it is at least of equal importance that schools themselves adapt to children. Children who experience poverty develop their own particular strengths and can be highly resilient. However, formal schooling can represent a very different environment than the one familiar to these children. it is incumbent on the education system, then, to be flexible enough to work with children from all types of backgrounds to build on the strengths that all children possess, as well as addressing any challenges they face.
Ultimately, the strength of this research lies in the clarity it brings to an area that is characterised by a plethora of data, indicators and targets. it is not new primary research, nor is it research for research’s sake. Rather, it combines existing data in a manner designed to illuminate our understanding of child well-being and galvanise action to improve the capacity of children to achieve their potential in the education system. Above all, it is an example of the type of holistic measure that tells politicians, policy-makers, practitioners and the general public whether or not we are succeeding in making Scotland the best place in the world for young children to grow up.
METHODOlOGY
Save the Children commissioned Scotcen Social Research to analyse data from the GUS longitudinal study to gauge the overall developmental health of children from different socio-economic backgrounds at around the time they enter primary school. it provides a robust measure of child development when starting school and demonstrates the capacity, or otherwise, of children growing up in poverty to take advantage of the benefits offered by formal schooling compared to children who do not live in poverty. it does so by measuring a child’s level of development in five key areas that contribute to their capacity to do well at school. Each broad area consists of data
from a number of individual indicators collected in GUS. The data is collected from around 3,000 children when they are five to six years old, around the time they are starting primary school. Most of the data is derived from the interviews with the child’s main carer that forms the basis of the GUS study. This is supplemented by data from standardised assessments such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and also formulas such as the body mass index (BMi). A full table showing the data collected under each domain and its source can be found in Appendix A.
The five domains that make up the measure are: 1) Physical well-being. Studies have shown that
being well coordinated and physically healthy helps a child to be ready for school.7 The data used for
this domain covers a child’s general physical health as well as their levels of physical activity.
2) Emotional well-being. This domain measures the capacity of the child to adjust emotionally to being at school. The data used includes whether or not the child has any emotional or conduct-related problems, and how well the child is likely to adjust from being apart from their main carer.
3) Social knowledge and competence. This domain measures how children interact with others, an important attribute when starting school. The data gathered covers the child’s ability to share and take turns, and how they mix with other children.
4) Cognitive development. A child’s cognitive ability is vital to their chances of adapting to a learning environment. To measure capacity in this domain, a problem-solving assessment was used. 5) Communication. This domain measures how
well a child can express themselves and make themselves understood. The data collected included the child’s expressive vocabulary and whether the child can be understood by others when speaking.
Taken together, the data from these domains provide us with a comprehensive picture of a child’s developmental health as they enter the education system and their capacity to do well at school. The instrument works by attributing a maximum score of five for each domain based on the data collected. The higher the score, the more severe the developmental difficulties faced by the child. The scores for each domain are then simply added together to give an overall score out of 25 for each child.
THR iv E AT F iv
E So that scores can be compared across different levels
of deprivation, the results were then analysed by three different socio-economic indicators:
1) annual household income
2) area deprivation (using the Scottish index of Multiple Deprivation (SiMD))
3) parental level of education.
These indicators were chosen to provide an in depth and well-rounded account of a child’s socio-economic background. low income is the key driver of poverty in Scotland and so the annual household income is a reliable proxy for poverty levels. But income is not the only factor in poverty, and so the SiMD – which uses 37 indicators to identify multiple deprivation – adds depth to the purely income-based indicator. Finally, a low level of education is one of the main risk factors related to poverty, so the parental levels of education indicator further strengthens the socio-economic analysis of the data.
Through this socio-economic analysis, the research creates a robust and reliable picture of the impact that poverty and deprivation has on a child’s development when they begin school. Two aspects of this research are particularly important to bear in mind. The first is that this is a
population-level measure. The findings relate to groups
of children – namely children from different socio-economic backgrounds – as opposed to individual children. No data relating to individual children is included in the findings. The findings can and should only be used to guide policies and decisions for children at a population level, for instance at national government or local authority level.
The second is that this is a holistic measure of child development. it does not examine ‘formal’ or specific skills such as literacy and numeracy. These
are skills that individual children naturally develop at different rates. instead, it considers the underlying developmental health factors that contribute to the likelihood of all children to fulfil their potential throughout the education system.
This report will now go on to summarise the key findings of this research. it will compare the developmental health of children living in poverty with children not living in poverty and those children from the most affluent backgrounds.
Throughout this report, the term ‘children in poverty’ refers to children in the lowest quintile of the annual household income indicator. The term ‘most affluent children’ refers to children in the highest quintile of the annual household income indicator. (This indicator was chosen because it is the most reliable proxy for child-poverty levels.) Relevant findings based on the other socio-economic indicators will also be highlighted where relevant.
To compare the results for children living in poverty and those who do not live in poverty, the scores of children in the bottom household income quintile will be contrasted with the average score across the other four quintiles. For comparisons between children living in poverty and the most affluent children, results from the lowest and highest quintiles will be compared. This method will also be used when results from the ‘area deprivation’ and ‘parental levels of education’ indicator are being discussed.
Tables showing the overall scores of children and scores in each development area across each socio-economic indicator can be found in Appendix B. The full report by Scotcen Social Research is available on request from Claire Telfer, Policy and Advocacy Manager: [email protected]
OvERAll FiNDiNGS
The findings of the research show that the majority of children in Scotland have good developmental health when they begin primary school. However, around a fifth of children are facing developmental difficulties.
• 79% of children have few or no
developmental difficulties when they began primary school.
• 21% of children have some relative developmental difficulty at this stage.
The findings also reveal a large disparity in development across children from different socio-economic backgrounds. Children who grow up in poverty are significantly more likely than their peers to face development difficulties at school-entry age. The difference in developmental health is particularly large between children living in poverty and children from affluent backgrounds.
• Children growing up in poverty are TWICE as likely as children who are not in poverty to have developmental difficulties when they begin school.
• Children living in poverty are FOUR times as likely as children from the most affluent backgrounds to have developmental difficulties.
The gap in developmental health at this young age between children in poverty and their peers is evident across all of the developmental areas included in the research:
• There is a significant developmental gap between children who grow up in poverty and their peers in each area of the measure: physical, emotional, social, cognitive and communicative.
in addition, large developmental gaps exist no matter which socio-economic indicator is used to analyse the results.
• Children from the most deprived areas of Scotland are TWICE as likely to face
developmental difficulties when they start school as children from other areas, and more than THREE TIMES as likely to face these difficulties as children from the least-deprived areas.
• Children whose parents have low or no qualifications are TWICE as likely to have poor developmental health at school-entry age as those whose parents are educated to Higher level or above, and more than THREE times as likely to face these difficulties as those with parents educated to degree level.8
The long-term ramifications of these developmental difficulties when children living in poverty start school are very serious – both for the individual children and for society as a whole. We know from attainment figures later in the education system that many of the children who begin their school life behind their classmates never catch up. Recent government statistics show a significant and steadily growing disparity in numeracy levels between pupils from deprived areas and their peers in primary 4, primary 7, and the second year of secondary school. By S2, for instance, almost half (44%) of children growing up in poverty are not reaching minimum standards of numeracy.9
By the time young people who have grown up in poverty leave the school system, the opportunities open to them have already been seriously, often irrevocably, limited. More than one-fifth of school leavers from deprived areas go straight into unemployment upon leaving school – double the national average of around one in ten. A mere 18% of young people who grow up in poverty go to university after leaving school – half of the average rate.10 As a result, they are more likely to remain in
poverty into adulthood, and so too their own family and children.
THR iv E AT F iv E
1. PHYSiCAl WEll-BEiNG
A number of educationalists argue that being in good physical health – for instance having high energy levels and being well rested – helps a child to adapt to school life.11 Also, in a survey of teachers,
three-quarters said that physical well-being was an essential component of a child’s ability to do well in the early years of school.12
The analysis of child development at school-entry age shows that the vast majority of children – 83% – do not have physical developmental difficulties when they enter primary school. However, those children that do have physical developmental difficulties are more likely to be living in poverty.
• Children who grow up in poverty are almost TWICE as likely to have physical development difficulties as other children when they begin primary school.
• They are almost THREE TIMES as likely to have physical development difficulties as the most affluent children.
Children who live in deprived areas are far more likely than other children to be absent from school due to ill health in the first year of primary school.
• Children from deprived areas miss 60% more school days than other children due to ill health (24 days a year compared to 15 days a year).
• Children from deprived areas are THREE TIMES more likely to be absent from school than children from the most affluent areas (24 days a year compared to eight days a year).
2. EMOTiONAl WEll-BEiNG
Starting school is an important and challenging transition for any child. Those who are emotionally resilient are more likely to adapt to their new surroundings and prosper in the school system. Tellingly, ‘emotional strengths’, such as coping and adaptability, are cited by parents as the most important attributes a child needs when starting school.13
Again, the research shows that the vast majority of children – 88% – do not have emotional development difficulties when they begin school. As with physical development, though, those that do are significantly more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Children who grow up in poverty are TWICE as likely as other children to face
emotional development difficulties when starting school.
• They are FOUR times more likely than the most affluent children to face difficulties in this area.
Conduct problems – such as fighting or being easily angered – were particularly prominent among children in poverty.
• 35% of children from the lowest income group had conduct problems, twice that of those in the highest income group.
3. SOCiAl kNOWlEDGE
AND COMPETENCE
Social attributes, such as being able to get on well and mix with other children, are cited by many academics as crucial to a child’s later development.14 For some
analysts, this is even more important than classroom performance or behaviour.15
Overall, only 5% of children have social difficulties when starting school – significantly lower than the proportion of children facing physical or emotional difficulties. The gap between children and poverty and their peers in this area was smaller than in the previous two domains.
Having said that, the gap in levels of social development between children from different socio-economic backgrounds remains significant.
• Children living in poverty were 40% more likely than other children to have difficulties in their social development when they start school.
• Children living in poverty were more than TWICE as likely as those from the most affluent households to face such difficulties at this stage.
The differences in social development were
particularly significant when the results were analysed by deprivation.
• Children living in the most deprived areas were TWICE as likely to have social difficulties when starting school than children from outside of the most deprived areas.
• Children living in the most deprived areas were THREE times more likely to have social difficulties than children in the least deprived areas.
2 F
iND
iNGS
The most common difficulty for all children in this area was peer problems – getting along with other children.
• Children from deprived areas experienced 75% more peer problems than other children.
• Children from the most deprived areas are TWICE as likely to have peer problems as those from the most affluent areas.
4. COGNiTivE DEvElOPMENT
A child’s cognitive ability, such as being able to solve age-appropriate problems, is closely linked to their chances of doing well at school. Those children with good cognitive skills are likely to adapt more quickly to, and prosper in, a learning environment.16 in a
survey of parents and teachers, cognitive skills came second only to emotional resilience as the most important factors in adapting to school life.17
in the cognitive development area of this research, there is, once again, a clear and significant gap in development between those children who grow up in poverty and those who do not.
• Children living in poverty are a THIRD more likely to have difficulties with their cognitive development when they start school than other children.
• Children living in poverty are almost TWICE as likely to face such difficulties as the most affluent children.
• In all, just under HALF of children growing up in poverty were found to have lower than average cognitive development at the time they enter primary school.
5. COMMUNiCATiON DEvElOPMENT
The final area analysed for this research was
communication development. This area focuses on the child’s ability to make themselves understood, both with peers and adults, as opposed to formal language ability or literacy skills. Child development literature stresses the importance of communication to how a child copes with the change to school life.18
As with all the other areas, children living in poverty are most at risk of facing developmental difficulties when they start school.
• Children who grow up in poverty are TWICE as likely to face difficulties with their communication development when they enter school as other children.
• They are more than THREE times as likely as children in the most affluent households to face such difficulties.
Children of parents who have no qualifications are particularly vulnerable in terms of communication development.
• More than HALF of children whose parents have no qualifications face communication difficulties when they start primary school. • This is more than TWICE the rate of
other children and THREE times the rate of children whose parents are degree educated.
The findings of the research into comparative
child development at school-entry age
reinforce the urgent need to provide
additional support in the early years for
children living in poverty. The current
legislative and policy agenda, along with
the widespread political consensus on the
importance of the early years, presents a real
opportunity to address the developmental
difficulties experienced by children living in
poverty in Scotland.
The Children and Young People Bill, for instance, has a strong emphasis on the role of the early years in improving children’s outcomes. The Early Years Framework cites “Breaking cycles of poverty, inequality and poor outcomes in and through early years” as a key priority.19 A £270 million Early Years
Change Fund, overseen by the Early Years Task Force, has been created to help instigate a shift in public spending and services to the early years and early intervention. in addition, the Child Poverty Strategy recognises the “particular importance of improving children’s outcomes in the early years”.20
The National Parenting Strategy, to be published in October, will seek to enhance support for parents with a particular focus on the first few years of a child’s life.
The priority for this myriad of legislative and policy work should be to break the link between growing up in poverty and developmental difficulties. it is not within the
scope of any single report to describe all that needs to be done to achieve this. Neither is there a single policy proposal that will in itself address this deep-rooted and complex problem. Rather, it will require a number of initiatives across a broad range of areas and the coordinated efforts of all levels of government as well as public bodies and the third sector.
The following recommendations outline the key policy areas that require attention. They include examples of the type of evidence-based initiatives that could help close the developmental gap revealed in this research and give all of our children the best start in life.
1. TACklE CHilD POvERTY
There are currently around 220,000 children living in poverty in Scotland.21 As the findings of this
research – as well as a great deal of other evidence – shows, poverty blights childhood and severely harms children’s potential. The Scottish government’s Child Poverty Strategy correctly identifies the policy priorities for tackling child poverty in Scotland: maximising family incomes and improving the opportunities for children born into deprivation to fulfil their potential. increasing family incomes – for instance through supporting parents into well-paid, sustainable employment – is a vital part of addressing the developmental gap. Some progress is being made in Scotland with the latest figures showing a 3% drop in child poverty,22 but projections suggest the number
of children living in poverty in Scotland could rise by 50,000 over the next decade.23 in the current difficult
economic climate, it is imperative that family incomes are protected and the Child Poverty Strategy is put into action and delivered on.
2. SUPPORT CHilDREN AND FAMiliES
iN THE EARlY YEARS
The case for investing in the early years to improve children’s outcomes and life chances is clear and unequivocal. it is particularly important that the needs of children growing up in poverty are prioritised in this investment and in the Scottish government’s broader early years work.
3
ConClusion and
3 C ONC lUS iON AND R ECOMMEND AT iONS
Two examples of measures that can be taken within the existing legislative and policy framework to improve the educational achievement of children born into poverty are:
ExTEND THE ENTiTlEMENT TO FREE EARlY EDUCATiON AND CARE TO All TWO-YEAR-OlDS liviNG iN POvERTY
The long-running Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPSE) study has consistently shown that early years provision can “… alleviate the effects of social disadvantage and can provide children with a better start to school”.24 it has also shown that
every month of pre-school provision after age two is linked to better cognitive development and improved independence, concentration and sociability.25
increasing the quantity will not be enough on its own – the full benefits of early education and care can only be realised if it is of a high quality.26 Based on this
evidence, consideration could be given to extending the commitment in the Children and Young People Bill to 600 hours of free early education and care for all three- and four-year-olds and looked-after two-year-olds to include all two-year-two-year-olds living in poverty, and to ensure this provision is of the highest quality.
CREATE AN ENTiTlEMENT TO PARENTiNG AND FAMilY SUPPORT FOR All FAMiliES iN DEPRivED AREAS
improving parental engagement in children’s education and the quality of the home-learning environment are the most important factors in a child’s educational achievement.27 Parents struggling
with the huge strains of raising a family on a low income can sometimes struggle to provide a positive home-learning environment.28 Yet there is a gap
in provision of parenting programmes specifically designed to support parents to become involved in their child’s education and improve the home-learning environment. Through the National Parenting Strategy, the Scottish government could create an entitlement to proven parenting and family support programmes with an education focus for all families living in deprived areas. Over time, this could be extended to families of all income levels.
3. DEvElOP A SiNGlE,
COMPREHENSivE MEASURE OF
CHilD WEll-BEiNG
The early years agenda cuts across a large and varied number of services, including health, education and social services. Each of these services has its own performance indicators and measurement, making it difficult to gain a comprehensive overview of whether or not the work being undertaken in the early years is succeeding in improving the lives of Scotland’s children.
Consideration should be given, then, to developing a single, comprehensive measure of child well-being that provides such an overview and can guide future policy work. The processes and methodology underpinning this work into comparative development at school-entry age can help inform the creation of such a tool. There is also other relevant ongoing work – such as the Early Development instrument pilot in East lothian – from which lessons can be learned. The guiding principles of any such measure should be to provide an easily understood, robust and comprehensive picture of development for children from different backgrounds. There is an opportunity to develop this kind of measure via the proposed Children and Young People Bill, which has provision for placing a duty on public bodies to “report collectively on how the lives of children and young people are improving”.
The above list is far from exhaustive, but gives a flavour of the type of initiatives and measures that are available to policy- and decision-makers. Whatever steps are taken, it is vital that the needs of children growing up in poverty in Scotland are at the forefront of the early years agenda.
There is nothing inevitable about child poverty or the developmental difficulties faced by children who grow up in poverty when they start school. With a combination of the necessary political will and effective policy solutions, Scotland can be the best place in the world for all children to grow up.
Binary version indicating negative development
Child’s general health is fair, bad or very bad
Child’s BMi is in the unhealthy range
Child had 10 or more days absent due to sickness in Primary 1
Child had not been active for at least 60 minutes every day in last week
Strongly agree/agree that child was not independent enough to cope with primary school
Child’s score is in the moderate or severe range
Strongly agree/agree that child would find being apart too difficult
Child’s score is in the moderate or severe range
Child’s score is in the moderate or severe range
Variable/measure from GUS Physical wellbeing
General health
Body Mass index (obese, overweight, normal weight)
School absence due to ill health (from education administrative records)
level of physical activity (active for 60 minutes or more on each day in the past week)
Worried that child was not independent enough to cope with primary school (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
Emotional wellbeing
‘Emotional symptoms’ sub-scale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (whether score is normal, moderate or severe)
Worried that child would find being apart from me (main carer) too difficult (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
‘Pro-social’ sub-scale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (whether score is normal, moderate or severe)
‘Conduct problems’ sub-scale of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (whether score is normal, moderate or severe)
appendix a
summary of the variaBles inCluded in
the Child development measure
Binary version indicating negative development
Child’s score is in the moderate or severe range
Strongly disagree/disagree that child was able to mix with other children well enough
Strongly disagree/disagree that child understood enough about taking turns and sharing
Quintile position of child’s ability score at age 5 (scored 1 – score in top 20% – to 5 – score in bottom 20%)
Quintile position of child’s ability score at age 5 (scored 1 – score in top 20% – to 5 – score in bottom 20%)
Child can be mostly understood by others when speaking
Variable/measure from GUS Social knowledge and competence
‘Peer problems’ sub-scale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (whether score is normal, moderate or severe)
Felt that child was able to mix with other children well enough to get along at primary school (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
Believe that child understood enough about taking turns and sharing to manage at primary school (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
Cognitive development
Problem solving (non-verbal reasoning) assessment score (assessment from the British Ability Scales, 2nd Edition Early Years Battery)
Communication
Naming vocabulary (expressive vocabulary) assessment score (assessment from the British Ability Scales, 2nd Edition Early Years Battery)
Whether child can be understood by others when speaking (mostly, sometimes, rarely)
APPEND
ix
1. OvERAll DEvElOPMENT
Note: Children who score ten or more on the overall index are considered to have developmental difficulties.
appendix B
taBles: developmental areas By
soCio-eConomiC indiCators
Less than 5 Between 5 and 10 10 or more Less than 5 Between 5 and 10 10 or more Less than 5 Between 5 and 10 10 or more Least 2 3 4 Most deprived deprived Top 4th 3rd 2nd Bottom quintile quintile quintile quintile quintileDegree or Vocational Higher Grade Standard Grade No qualifications equivalent qualification or equivalent or equivalent
below degree or other 60 40 20 0 60 40 20 0 60 40 20 0
OverAll develOpment By AreA deprivAtiOn (%)
OverAll develOpment By AnnuAl hOuSehOld incOme (%)
OverAll develOpment By pArentAl level Of educAtiOn (%)
33 56 34 10 33 51 16 23 60 17 19 55 25 17 50 33 42 51 7 31 55 13 28 56 17 21 54 25 13 54 33 54 12 22 57 21 22 47 53 25 18 35 10 50 40
APPEND
ix
B
2: PHYSiCAl WEll-BEiNG
Note: Children who score two or more on this index are considered to have physical-developmental difficulties.
Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Least 2 3 4 Most deprived deprived Top 4th 3rd 2nd Bottom quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile
Degree or Vocational Higher Grade Standard Grade No qualifications equivalent qualification or equivalent or equivalent
below degree or other 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0
phySicAl well-Being By AreA deprivAtiOn (%)
phySicAl well-Being By hOuSehOld incOme (%)
phySicAl well-Being By pArentAl level Of educAtiOn (%)
90 91 88 10 88 12 83 80 75 25 20 17 9 90 10 85 80 75 25 20 15 12 82 18 77 76 74 26 24 23
THR iv E AT F iv E
3. EMOTiONAl WEll-BEiNG
Note: Children who score two or more on this index are considered to have emotional-developmental difficulties.
Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Least 2 3 4 Most deprived deprived Top 4th 3rd 2nd Bottom quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile
Degree or Vocational Higher Grade Standard Grade No qualifications equivalent qualification or equivalent or equivalent
below degree or other 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0
emOtiOnAl well-Being By AreA deprivAtiOn (%)
emOtiOnAl well-Being By hOuSehOld incOme (%)
emOtiOnAl well-Being By pArentAl level Of educAtiOn (%)
92 95 91 8 92 8 88 85 82 18 15 12 5 92 8 89 86 81 19 14 11 9 88 12 94 81 74 26 19 6
APPEND
ix
B
4. SOCiAl kNOWlEDGE AND COMPETENCE
Note: Children who score two or more on this index are considered to have social developmental difficulties.
Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Score of 1 or less Score of 2 or more Least 2 3 4 Most deprived deprived Top 4th 3rd 2nd Bottom quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile
Degree or Vocational Higher Grade Standard Grade No qualifications equivalent qualification or equivalent or equivalent
below degree or other 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0
SOciAl knOwledge And cOmpetence By AreA deprivAtiOn (%)
SOciAl knOwledge And cOmpetence By hOuSehOld incOme (%)
SOciAl knOwledge And cOmpetence By pArentAl level Of educAtiOn (%)
97 97 96 3 97 3 96 93 91 9 7 4 3 97 3 94 93 93 7 7 6 4 95 5 95 93 90 10 7 5
THR iv E AT F iv E
5. COGNiTivE DEvElOPMENT
Note: Children who score four or more on this index are considered to have cognitive-developmental difficulties.
Score of 3 or less Score of 4 or more Score of 3 or less Score of 4 or more Score of 3 or less Score of 4 or more Least 2 3 4 Most deprived deprived Top 4th 3rd 2nd Bottom quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile
Degree or Vocational Higher Grade Standard Grade No qualifications equivalent qualification or equivalent or equivalent
below degree or other 80 60 40 20 0 80 60 40 20 0 80 60 40 20 0
cOgnitive develOpment By AreA deprivAtiOn (%)
cOgnitive develOpment By hOuSehOld incOme (%)
cOgnitive develOpment By pArentAl level Of educAtiOn (%)
69 69 68 31 64 36 62 55 55 45 45 38 31 64 36 62 55 55 45 45 38 32 60 40 56 53 46 54 47 44
APPEND
ix
B
6. COMMUNiCATiON iNDEx
Note: Children who score four or more on this index are considered to have communication-developmental difficulties.
Score of 3 or less Score of 4 or more Score of 3 or less Score of 4 or more Score of 3 or less Score of 4 or more Least 2 3 4 Most deprived deprived Top 4th 3rd 2nd Bottom quintile quintile quintile quintile quintile
Degree or Vocational Higher Grade Standard Grade No qualifications equivalent qualification or equivalent or equivalent
below degree or other 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0 100 80 60 40 20 0
cOmmunicAtiOn By AreA deprivAtiOn (%)
cOmmunicAtiOn By hOuSehOld incOme (%)
cOmmunicAtiOn By pArentAl level Of educAtiOn (%)
82 87 84 18 81 19 79 68 64 36 32 21 13 83 17 79 70 59 41 30 21 16 75 25 71 61 48 52 39 29
1 Save the Children used data from the Growing Up in Scotland (GUS)
study analysed by Scotcen Social Research.
2 Throughout this report ‘children living in poverty’ refers to children living
in households in the lowest income quintile.
3 Scottish government, A Scotland for Children: A Consultation on the Children and Young People Bill, Scottish government, 2012. http://www.scotland.gov.
uk/Publications/2012/07/7181
4 ibid.
5 S Deacon, Joining the Dots: A Better Start for Scotland’s Children, 2011.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/02093147/0
6 Department for Children, Schools and Families, ‘Breaking the
link: Everyone’s Business’, Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010. http://www. education.gov.uk/publications/standard/ Specialeducationalneeds/Page1/DCSF-00213-2010
7 New South Wales Parenting Centre, School Readiness: Discussion Paper 1,
New South Wales Parenting Centre, 2003. http://www.community.nsw.gov. au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/school_readiness.pdf
8 Parents with ‘low or no qualifications’ means those educated to the
equivalent of Standard Grade level or below.
9 Scottish government, ‘Scottish Survey of literacy and Numeracy 2011’,
Scottish government, 2012 scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/5285/0
10 Scottish government, ‘Summary statistics for attainment, leaver
destinations and healthy living’, No. 2, 2012 Edition, Scottish government, 2012 scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/06/4917/0
11 See, for instance, A Dean, J Ashton, and A Elliott, ‘Advice to parents on
early schooling: what Australian women’s magazines have to say’, Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 19 (4), 1994, pp 3–11.
12 E M lewitt and l S Baker, ‘The future of children’, School Readiness 5 (2),
1995, pp 128–139.
13 S Dockett, B Perry and D Tracy, ‘Getting ready for school’, 2000, http://
www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003324.htm
14 See, for instance, D E Mclellan and l G katz, ‘Assessing Young Children’s
Competence’, 2001
15 W W Hartup and C F M van lieshout, ‘Personality development in social
context’, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 1995, pp 655-687.
16 D R Neuspiel, ‘Starting points: meeting the needs of our youngest
children’, Carnegie Task Force, 1994, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article. aspx?articleid=381441
17 S Dockett, B Perry, and D Tracey, ‘Getting ready for school’, 2000, http://
www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003324.htm
18 M Janus, D Offord, and C Walsh, Population-level Assessment of Readiness to Learn at School for Five-Year-Olds in Canada: Relation to child and parent measures, Paper presented at the SRCD Meeting, Minneapolis, April 2001. 19 Scottish government, The Early Years Framework, Scottish government,
2008, p 4.
20 Scottish government, Child Poverty Strategy, Scottish government, 2011,
p 2.
21 Scottish government, Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland: 2010/11,
Scottish government, 2012.
22 ibid.
23 M Brewer, J Browne, R Joyce, Child and Working Age Poverty from 2010 to 2020, institute for Fiscal Studies, 2011.
24 k Sylva et al, The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPSE),
institute of Education, University of london, 2011.
25 k Sylva et al, The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project 1997–2003, institute of Education, University of london, 2004.
26 See note 24.
27 E Melhuish, Impact of the Home Learning Environment on Child Cognitive Development: Secondary analysis of data from ‘Growing up in Scotland’, Scottish
government, 2010
28 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Importance of Attitudes and Behaviour for Poorer Children’s Educational Achievement, Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
2010.
Children who grow up in poverty start primary school with development levels far behind those of their more affluent peers.
That’s the key finding of recent research commissioned by Save the Children.
Ultimately, the consequences of this developmental gap are found in the lack of future opportunities of children in poverty.
These children are less likely to do well at school, gain good qualifications, and find the well- paid, stable employment required to find a route out of poverty. They are more likely to remain mired in poverty in adulthood, increasing the likelihood that their own children will be born into deprivation.
The evidence is clear: many children who grow up in poverty in Scotland are starting school at a serious disadvantage to their classmates.
That’s why this report strongly argues the need to provide additional support in the early years for children living in poverty.
savethechildren.org.uk
CO v ER P HO TO : SAND Y Y OUNG /SA v E THE CH il DRENthrive at five
Comparative child development
at school entry age
