Scotland’s Free Childcare Expansion Delivers Huge Savings for Families – But Child Development Shows No Gains

Scotland’s bold 2021 decision to nearly double funded early learning and childcare (ELC) to 1140 hours a year has slashed costs for parents and cut reliance on grandparents. Yet a major new Scottish Government study published this week reveals the policy has so far failed to deliver the expected improvements in children’s cognitive, language or broader development skills.

The landmark research, based on thousands of families before and after the rollout, shows the biggest financial winners are the lowest earners – while the pandemic’s shadow hangs heavily over children’s progress.

Families Pocket Real Savings, Especially the Poorest

The expansion has been a game-changer for household budgets.

Before 2021, families typically used 22.2 hours of childcare a week, paying for nearly six of those hours themselves. Now they average 30.3 hours – with just three hours paid for.

The proportion paying for extra hours at their main setting dropped from 28% to 20%. Using another provider for top-up care fell from 15% to 10%.

Most strikingly, the lowest-income families now pay for less than a quarter of the extra hours they used to, compared with just over half for middle and higher earners. One parent from Glasgow told researchers the saving was “life-changing – it meant I could finally go back to college without worrying about bills”.

Use of informal childcare, mainly grandparents, has also fallen sharply – from 39% to 30% overall, and from 24% to just 9% among the poorest families.

Child Development Outcomes: The Sobering Truth

Despite the extra hours and investment, the study finds no evidence yet that children’s cognitive or language development has improved.

Communication skills judged “on schedule” for children about to leave ELC dropped from 88% pre-expansion to 82% post-expansion.

For the most disadvantaged two-year-olds eligible for funded places, the picture was static: around 40-46% on schedule at age two, rising only to 48-50% by age three, both before and after the policy.

Social, emotional and behavioural development shows a mixed pattern. While the share of ELC leavers with “few or no difficulties” fell from 85% to 78%, the eligible two-year-olds saw a significant leap – from 41% with few difficulties at age two to 62% at age three after a year of the expanded provision.

For the first time, these vulnerable children reached the same level as their better-off peers by age three.

The Pandemic Effect – And Other Factors

Researchers stress that the COVID years sit squarely between the “before” and “after” samples, making direct comparisons difficult. National data across Scotland and the rest of the UK show children’s development worsened over the same period.

Other factors linked to stronger development outcomes remain familiar: girls do better than boys, older children in the year group outperform younger ones, and children of degree-educated or employed parents fare better.

Children from non-white ethnic backgrounds, those with long-term health conditions, or attending lower-quality settings were more likely to fall behind.

What Happens Next?

Scottish ministers point to the clear financial and wellbeing benefits for families – especially the poorest – and the closing of the gap for disadvantaged two-year-olds as proof the policy is working as intended in its early years.

Critics argue the lack of progress on cognitive outcomes for the wider group of three- and four-year-olds raises serious questions about value for money at a cost of over £1 billion a year when fully rolled out.

Parents, practitioners and politicians will now watch closely to see whether the extra hours begin to show clearer developmental dividends as the post-pandemic cohorts move through the system – or whether quality, staffing or targeting need urgent attention.

One thing is undeniable: for thousands of Scottish families, the expanded hours have already put money back in pockets and reduced stress. Whether that translates into the brighter future promised for their children remains, for now, the big unanswered question.

What do you think – is the policy already a success for families, or do the child development findings ring alarm bells? Share your views below.