copy the linklink copied!Chapter 3. Children’s emergent literacy and emergent numeracy outcomes in England

This chapter presents findings on the emergent literacy and emergent numeracy of five-year-olds in England. It describes how children’s scores in each of these early learning domains relate to their individual characteristics, family backgrounds, home learning environments and early childhood education and care participation.

copy the linklink copied!The importance of early literacy and numeracy development

The literacy and numeracy skills developed in early childhood are important for children’s well-being in the present and can be foundational to their future success in life. Decades of longitudinal research have shown that early literacy and numeracy outcomes strongly predict later cognitive and educational outcomes (Duncan et al., 2007_[1]). Early literacy and numeracy skills are also associated with a range of social, emotional and economic outcomes throughout life (Reynolds et al., 2002_[2]).

Gaps in literacy and numeracy development between children are influenced by their individual characteristics, home environments, and early childhood education and care (ECEC) experiences. These gaps are observable by the time children start school. Once they exist, the gaps become increasingly difficult and costly to close. Early intervention can address this and improve the literacy and numeracy development of children in both the short- and longer-term (Reynolds et al., 2002_[2]; Schweinhart, 2013_[3]).

Gaps in literacy development require early attention

The consequences of not addressing emergent literacy gaps early are serious. Adequate literacy skills are required to complete everyday and more complex tasks, yet approximately 23 % of 15-year-old students on average across OECD countries do not reach a baseline level of proficiency1 in reading, including 17 % of 15-year-olds in England (OECD, 2019_[4]). Similarly, 20 % of adults on average across OECD countries, have low reading performance,2 including 16 % of adults in England (OECD, 2013_[5]). These adults have poorer labour-market outcomes and poorer self-reported health than their peers with higher literacy proficiency. They are also less likely to report that they have trust in others and more likely to feel that they have little impact on the political process (OECD, 2013_[5]).

The roots of low adult literacy are found in childhood. As skills beget skills, children who fall behind early in their literacy and language development are likely to fall further behind over time (Kautz et al., 2014_[6]; Rigney, 2010_[7]). Assessing children’s early literacy skills can provide important information on where societies should focus attention and resources in order to promote quality and equity in early literacy development and, in turn, in children’s life chances. Assessing emergent literacy skills is an integral part of the International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study (IELS).

Early numeracy outcomes are strong predictors of a range of later outcomes

Although emergent numeracy has been subject to less research attention than emergent literacy, longitudinal research has also identified numeracy ability in early childhood as being important for outcomes throughout schooling and into adulthood. Numeracy competence, as assessed at school entry, is the strongest predictor of later mathematical achievement and strongly predicts achievement in other academic domains (Duncan et al., 2007_[1]). Better numeracy competence in childhood is associated with higher socio-economic status in adulthood (Ritchie and Bates, 2013_[8]) and better self-reported health outcomes (Lê-Scherban et al., 2014_[9]).

On average, 24 % of adults in OECD countries fail to develop numeracy skills that go beyond an ability to undertake the most basic numerical operations (OECD, 2016_[10]).3 In England, this proportion is also 24 %. In most countries, adults with poor information processing skills, including numeracy skills, are less likely to be employed and, when employed, tend to earn lower wages (OECD, 2016_[10]). While the cost of innumeracy to individuals and societies is high now, it is likely to grow even higher in an increasingly technological and scientific world (Raghubar and Barnes, 2017_[11]).

England was the only country that participated in the OECD Survey of Adult Skills in which the oldest age group (55-65 years) had higher literacy and numeracy proficiency than the youngest age group (16-24 years), after accounting for a range of sociodemographic characteristics. The clear implication is that the skills of adults in England are likely to decline in the coming decades unless action is taken to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of young people (OECD, 2013_[5]).

A comprehensive assessment of emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes should consider a range of learning areas predictive of later competence

Literacy and numeracy skills can be broadly categorised as constrained or unconstrained. Constrained skills are those that are finite, such as alphabet knowledge. These are typically easily assessed. Unconstrained skills include aspects of literacy such as vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension. Unconstrained skills develop over a longer period and draw on constrained skills in their formation (Snow and Matthews, 2016_[12]).

A comprehensive assessment of emergent literacy skills should include assessments of both types of skill. While unconstrained emergent literacy skills are generally more challenging to assess, they tend to be more strongly associated with later reading success and were therefore the primary focus of the IELS emergent literacy assessment. The assessment used innovative, play-based methods and was delivered on tablet devices.

IELS assesses a range of constrained and unconstrained emergent literacy and numeracy skills

IELS assessed three skills deemed fundamental to later literacy competence: the unconstrained skills of listening comprehension and vocabulary knowledge, and the constrained skill of phonological awareness. The assessment of listening comprehension in IELS involved two main components: story-level listening comprehension and sentence-level listening comprehension. The former involved children listening to a story and responding to a series of audio-recorded items relating to that story, while the latter involved listening to a series of standalone sentences and responding to a single item about the meaning of each. Each vocabulary item in IELS required children to identify from a range of common everyday word options (Tier 1 words4) the synonym of a more complex (Tier 2) word. Phonological awareness items required children to identify the first, middle and final phonemes (sounds) of short words. Print knowledge was not assessed in IELS. There were no reading or writing activities. The focus was instead on the pre-reading literacy and language skills that are predictive of later reading success.5

The general principle of focusing on the assessment of unconstrained skills in IELS was also applied to the assessment of emergent numeracy skills. Emergent numeracy was defined in the study as the ability to recognise numbers and to undertake numerical operations and reasoning in mathematics. The emphasis in the assessment was on simple problem solving and the application of concepts and reasoning in the following content areas: numbers and counting, working with numbers, shape and space, measurement, and pattern. As with emergent literacy, the emergent numeracy assessment was delivered on a tablet and involved children engaging with game-like activities. The emergent numeracy assessment used a mixture of drag-and-drop technology, where children moved items around the screen to construct solutions to problems, and hot-spot technology, where children tapped objects to indicate their preferred option when responding to an item.

IELS assesses how the emergent literacy and emergent numeracy outcomes of children relate to their individual characteristics, family backgrounds, home learning environments and early learning experiences

This chapter presents the outcomes of the IELS emergent literacy and emergent numeracy assessments of children in England. In addition to directly assessing children’s emergent literacy and numeracy skills, indirect information on children’s emergent literacy and numeracy development was collected through questionnaires administered to children’s parents and educators, and this information is also presented in this chapter. Where parent and educator reports on aspects of children’s development are compared in tables, graphs or text, these comparisons are made with respect to children for whom both parent and educator reports were available. Contextual information about children’s lives was also collected through these questionnaires. Any results reported that are based on information collected via an item on the parent questionnaire, then, relate just to the subsample of children whose parents completed the questionnaire and responded to the item in question.

This chapter reports how children’s emergent literacy and numeracy skills relate to their individual characteristics, family background characteristics, home learning environments, and ECEC experiences in England. It also considers the relationships between children’s emergent literacy and emergent numeracy outcomes and their outcomes in other learning domains assessed in IELS. Similarities and differences between the outcomes of IELS in England and those in the other two countries that participated in IELS, the United States and Estonia, are highlighted throughout. The chapter concludes with a summary and some preliminary conclusions.

copy the linklink copied!Emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes in England

Five-year-olds in England have higher emergent literacy and numeracy scores, on average, than the overall IELS averages

The mean score of children in England on the IELS direct assessment of emergent literacy was 515 points, which was significantly higher than that of children in the United States (477), but not significantly different from the mean in Estonia (508). The score of children at the 25th percentile of emergent literacy in England was 452 points (compared to 440 in Estonia and 414 in the United States), and the score of children at the 75th percentile in emergent literacy in England was 584 points (compared to 576 points in Estonia and 541 in the United States).

The mean score of five-year-olds in England on the direct assessment of emergent numeracy was 529 points, which was significantly higher than the mean scores in Estonia (500) and the United States (471). The score of children at the 25th percentile in emergent numeracy in England was 465 points (435 in Estonia and 409 in the United States). The score of children at the 75th percentile was 599 points (567 points in Estonia and 537 in the United States). The distributions of emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores in England are shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Distribution of emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores, England

Parent and educator evaluations of children’s emergent literacy and emergent numeracy development are broadly in line with children’s directly assessed early literacy outcomes

Both parents and educators are important sources of information on five-year-olds’ emergent literacy and numeracy development. Parents know most about their child’s developmental pathway and educators are trained professionals who work with young children on a daily basis. In IELS, both parents and educators were asked to indicate whether they perceived children’s language and numeracy development to be less than average (either much less or somewhat less), average, or more than average (either somewhat more or much more).

Just 8 % of children had parents who described their receptive language development (defined as the extent to which the child understands, interprets and listens) as being below average. Over half (55 %) of children in England had parents who described their development as above average, and 37 % had parents who described their development as average. By contrast, one-third (33 %) of children were rated as having above average receptive language development by their educators, approximately half (48 %) as having average development, and one in five (19 %) as having below average development (Table 3.1).

Whether by parents or educators, children evaluated as having below average receptive language development had significantly lower mean emergent literacy scores than those rated as average. Those rated above average had significantly higher mean emergent literacy scores than those rated as average.

copy the linklink copied!

Table 3.1. Receptive language development as reported by parents and educators and emergent literacy scores, England
	Parents		Educators
	% of children	Mean score	% of children	Mean score
Below average	8	431	19	449
Average (reference category)	37	513	48	517
Above average	55	543	33	576
Note: Mean scores in bold are significantly different from those of children in the “average” category. Estimates in this table relate to the subsample of children for whom both parent and educator ratings were available.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934098630

In England, just 4 % of five-year-olds had parents who assessed their expressive language development (the degree to which the child uses language effectively, can communicate ideas, etc.) as below average, compared to 16 % as assessed by educators. Most children (70 %) were assessed as having above average expressive language development by their parents, compared to around 35 % as assessed by educators. Children rated as having average expressive language development, whether by their parents or educators, had significantly higher mean emergent literacy scores than children rated as below average, and significantly lower mean scores than children rated as above average (Table 3.2).

copy the linklink copied!

Table 3.2. Expressive language development as reported by parents and educators and emergent literacy scores, England
	Parents		Educators
	% of children	Mean score	% of children	Mean score
Below average	4	407	16	440
Average (reference category)	26	503	49	514
Above average	70	536	35	574
Note: Mean scores in bold are significantly different from those of children in the “average” category. Estimates in this table relate to the subsample of children for whom both parent and educator ratings were available.
https://doi.org/10.1787/888934098649

Most five-year-olds in England have mastered key early language skills, according to their parents and educators

In addition to providing overall ratings of children’s language development, parents and educators were asked to indicate whether children had mastered each of a number of specific language and literacy-related skills. In England, 84 % of children could draw inferences after listening to a story about how a character felt or about what might happen next, according to their parents. Additionally, 95 % of children had parents who indicated that their five-year-old could speak in multiple sentences (at least three) to explain something that had happened to him or her. Similarly, 92 % of children had parents who indicated that their child could recognise the sounds of words that rhyme.

Figure 3.2. Mastery of key language and literacy-related skills as reported by parents and educators, England

Figure 3.3. Emergent literacy scores by reported mastery of key language and literacy-related skills, England

Educators were less likely than parents to indicate that children had mastered each skill, as was also the case in Estonia and the United States. The largest gap between educator and parent reports related to the child’s ability to recognise rhyming sounds, with 92 % of parents indicating that their child could do this, compared to 79 % of educators (Figure 3.2). In each case, children who were reported as not having mastered the skill in question had significantly lower mean emergent literacy scores than other children (Figure 3.3), with score-point gaps ranging from 62 to 110 points, depending on the skill and respondent in question.

Parent ratings of children’s numeracy development tend to be higher than educator ratings

Parents and educators reported on how they perceived their children’s numeracy development relative to the average development of a five-year-old. A higher proportion of children were reported as having below average numeracy development by their educators (17 %) than were rated below average by their parents (5 %). Children whose numeracy development was rated as average by their parents or by their educators had significantly higher mean emergent numeracy scores than children rated as below average, and significantly lower mean scores than children whose development was rated as above average (Table 3.3).

copy the linklink copied!

Table 3.3. Numeracy development as reported by parents and educators and emergent numeracy scores, England
	Parents		Educators
	% of children	Mean score	% of children	Mean score
Below average	5	408	17	436
Average (reference category)	40	515	49	527
Above average	55	563	35	597
Note: Mean scores in bold are significantly different from those of children in the “average” category. Estimates in this table relate to the subsample of children for whom both parent and educator ratings were available.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934098706

Most five-year-olds in England can sort objects, count up to 20 aloud, recognise numerals up to 20, and do simple addition with objects, according to their parents and educators

Parents and educators were asked to indicate whether each child had mastered a series of numeracy or mathematics-related skills. Children were most likely to be able to identify at least three different shapes (99 % according to parents and 95 % according to educators) and to sort a group of objects by size, shape or colour (98 % and 97 %, respectively). Children were least likely to be able to count in multiples according to their parents and educators (51 % and 34 %, respectively, the largest gap between parent and educator reports). In all cases, parents were more likely than educators to indicate that children had mastered the competency in question (Figure 3.4), as was also the case in Estonia and the United States.

Figure 3.4. Mastery of key early numeracy skills as reported by parents and educators, England

Children reported as having mastered a particular skill had significantly higher mean emergent numeracy scores than children reported as not having mastered this skill. Score-point gaps ranged from 100 points (between children who could and could not count in multiples, according to their parents) to 163 points (between children who could and could not identify at least three shapes, according to their educators; Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5. Emergent numeracy scores by reported mastery of key early numeracy skills, England

copy the linklink copied!Individual characteristics and emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes

Girls have higher mean emergent literacy scores than boys, but similar emergent numeracy outcomes in England

In England, the mean score of girls on the emergent literacy assessment was higher than that of boys (Figure 3.6). The 16-point difference was statistically significant. There were also similar gender gaps in favour of girls in the other two participating countries (17 points in the United States and 15 points in Estonia). However, there was no significant difference between the mean emergent numeracy scores of girls and boys in England, or in the United States or Estonia.

Figure 3.6. Emergent literacy scores by gender, England

Girls are more likely than boys to have above average receptive and expressive language skills, according to their parents and educators

In line with their higher average score on the IELS emergent literacy assessment, a higher proportion of girls than boys in England were evaluated by their parents and educators as having above average receptive and expressive language development. A lower proportion of girls than boys were also rated as having below average language development (Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.7. Receptive language development as reported by parents and educators by gender, England

Figure 3.8. Expressive language development as reported by parents and educators by gender, England

Similar proportions of boys and girls have average numeracy development, according to their parents and educators, but a higher proportion of girls were rated as above average

Roughly equivalent proportions of boys and girls had parents and educators who indicated that their numeracy development was average (Figure 3.9). There was a significant association between gender and educator ratings. Girls were more likely to be rated as above average by their educators and boys more likely to be rated as below average.

Age is positively related to emergent literacy and numeracy development

Children’s emergent literacy and numeracy skills develop rapidly as they progress through early childhood. There were significant positive correlations between children’s age in months and their scores on the IELS emergent literacy and emergent numeracy assessments in all three participating countries. In England, the correlation between age in months and emergent literacy was 0.25, and for emergent numeracy was 0.33. For emergent literacy, the score-point difference between the oldest children (6 years 0 months) in the sample and the youngest (5 years 0 months)6 was 96 points. For emergent numeracy, the corresponding gap was 139 points (Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.9. Numeracy development as reported by parents and educators by gender, England

Figure 3.10. Emergent literacy and numeracy scores by age of child in months, England

Low birth weight or premature birth, learning difficulties, and social, emotional or behavioural difficulties are associated with lower emergent literacy and numeracy scores

Parents were asked to indicate whether their child had ever experienced a number of potential challenges or difficulties. In England, 11 % of children for whom information was available were reported by their parents as having had low weight at birth or premature birth (compared to 10 % in the United States and 8 % in Estonia).7 These children had mean emergent numeracy scores that were significantly lower than those of their peers who were not reported as having had a low weight at birth or premature birth. There was no significant difference in mean emergent literacy scores.

Similarly, one in ten children (10 %) had experienced learning difficulties (such as speech or language delay, intellectual disability), according to their parents (13 % in the United States and 10 % in Estonia). These children scored significantly lower in both emergent literacy and emergent numeracy, on average, than other children. Some 8 % of children had social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, according to their parents (12 % in the United States, 10 % in Estonia). Again, these children had significantly lower mean emergent literacy and numeracy scores than other children.

When each of the difficulties were analysed in combination, low birth weight/premature birth was not a significant predictor of emergent literacy but remained a significant predictor of emergent numeracy (Figure 3.11). Learning difficulties were more strongly associated with emergent literacy scores than each of the other early difficulties, while social, emotional and behavioural difficulties were most strongly associated with emergent numeracy scores.

Figure 3.11. Relative associations between early difficulties and emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores

There were statistically significant associations between gender and having learning difficulties or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties in England. Boys were approximately twice as likely as girls to have had learning difficulties (6 % of girls and 13 % of boys), and were also significantly more likely to have had social, emotional or behavioural difficulties (6.5 % of girls and 10 % of boys), according to their parents. These gender associations were also present in the United States and Estonia.

There were also statistically significant associations between having experienced each of these early challenges or difficulties and socio-economic status (SES) which, in IELS, was an index comprising household income, parent occupation and parent educational attainment.8 In England, 17 % of children in the lowest SES quartile had learning difficulties, according to their parents, compared to 5 % of children in the top SES quartile. Approximately one in four boys (24 %) in the lowest SES quartile had learning difficulties, compared to 9 % of girls in the same quartile. Additionally, 15 % of children in the lowest SES quartile had social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, according to their parents, compared to 5 % of children in the top SES quartile. One in five boys (20 %) in the lowest SES quartile had social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, compared to 9 % of girls in the same quartile. There was no significant association between low birth weight/prematurity and SES in England (such an association was present in the United States, but not in Estonia).

copy the linklink copied!Home and family characteristics and emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes

Socio-economic status is strongly associated with emergent literacy and numeracy scores in England, with children from the top SES quartile scoring much higher, on average, than those from the bottom quartile

Socio-economic status was significantly positively correlated with emergent literacy (r = 0.37) and emergent numeracy (r = 0.34) outcomes in England. For emergent literacy, five-year-olds in the top socio-economic status quartile had a mean score that was significantly higher than the score of children in the bottom socio-economic status quartile, by a margin of 92 points (Figure 3.12). The corresponding gap in emergent numeracy mean scores was 86 points.

The relationships between socio-economic status and literacy and numeracy development were stronger in England than in Estonia. It should be noted that the United Kingdom has more income inequality than Estonia, with Gini coefficients9 of 0.36 and 0.31, respectively (OECD, 2020_[13]). The correlation between emergent literacy and socio-economic status was of similar magnitude in England and the United States (Gini coefficient 0.39). However, the correlation between socio-economic status and emergent numeracy was weaker in England than in the United States. Correlations between emergent literacy and numeracy development and socio-economic status did not differ significantly by gender in England.

Figure 3.12. Emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores by socio-economic quartile, England

A home language other than English is associated with lower average emergent literacy and numeracy scores in IELS

In England, 16 % of five-year-olds for whom information on home language was available lived in homes where at least one parent mostly spoke a language other than English. These children had significantly lower mean emergent literacy and numeracy scores than other children, after accounting for socio-economic background (Figure 3.13).10

Figure 3.13. Difference in emergent literacy scores by home language, England

Children with an immigrant background have a lower mean emergent literacy score than children without an immigrant background, but there is no corresponding difference in emergent numeracy

In England, 18 % of children in IELS for whom information was available were identified as having an immigrant background.11 These children had a significantly lower mean emergent literacy score than children without an immigrant background, by a margin of 55 points. After controlling for socio-economic status and home language (whether at least one parent mainly spoke a language other than English), the gap reduced to 35 points and remained statistically significant. The emergent numeracy skills of children with an immigrant background were not significantly different from those of children without an immigrant background, after accounting for socio-economic status and home language (Figure 3.14).

Figure 3.14. Difference in emergent literacy scores by immigrant background, England

There is no difference in the mean emergent literacy scores of children from one-parent and those from two-parent households in England, after accounting for socio-economic status

In England, 15 % of five-year-olds in IELS for whom information on family structure was available lived in one-parent households. After accounting for the effects12 of socio-economic status, there was no significant difference between the mean emergent literacy scores of children in one-parent households and those in two-parent households. However, even after accounting for socio-economic status, the mean emergent numeracy score of children in one-parent families was significantly lower than the mean score of children in two-parent families (Figure 3.15).

Figure 3.15. Difference in emergent numeracy scores by household structure, England

Emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes of five-year-olds with no siblings are similar to those of children with one sibling and two siblings, but having four or more siblings is associated with lower emergent literacy and numeracy scores in England, even after accounting for SES

In England, 16 % of five-year-olds for whom information was provided had no siblings, 50 % had one sibling, 22 % had two, 7 % had three and 5 % had four or more. No information was collected in IELS about the ages or genders of participating children’s siblings. The mean emergent literacy and numeracy scores of children with one sibling did not differ significantly from those of children with no siblings or those with two, after accounting for socio-economic status.

Children with three siblings had a significantly lower mean emergent literacy score than those with one, but there was no significant difference in emergent numeracy scores. However, having four or more siblings was associated with lower emergent literacy and numeracy scores in both domains, even after accounting for socio-economic status. A larger number of siblings was also negatively associated with scores in the United States. In Estonia, very few five-year-olds had more than two siblings.

Previous studies have also found negative associations between children’s emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes and a greater number of siblings. These negative associations may be attributable to parents having finite amounts of energy, money and time which are diluted as the number of siblings increases (Downey, 2001_[14]). Family size was found to be the strongest predictor of parental investment per child in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, even among high-income families (Lawson and Mace, 2009_[15]). Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study found that at ages three, five and seven, having two or more siblings instead of just one was associated with a significantly raised risk of having poorer outcomes, particularly for cognitive outcomes, and that the risk increased with each additional sibling (De La Rochebrochard and Joshi, 2013_[16]).

Children whose mothers have higher educational attainment achieved higher average emergent literacy and numeracy scores

In England, 14 % of children for whom information on parental educational attainment was available had mothers whose highest qualification was lower secondary education, a higher proportion than in the other two countries that participated in IELS. There was a significant relationship between mothers’ educational attainment and children’s emergent literacy and numeracy development in England (Table 3.4), as was also seen in Estonia and the United States.

In England, 40 % of children in the sample had mothers who had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (a similar proportion as in the United States and lower than the 53 % in Estonia). These children had significantly higher mean emergent literacy and numeracy scores than children whose mothers had completed less formal education, even after accounting for household income (Figure 3.16).

copy the linklink copied!

Table 3.4. Maternal educational attainment and mean emergent literacy and numeracy scores, England
	% of children	Literacy	Numeracy
*Completed 5 GCSEs at A-C, NVQ at level 2, or equivalent (ISCED 2)**	14	476	490
Completed AS or A levels, NVQ at level 3, or equivalent (ISCED 3) (Ref)	37	517	530
HNC, HND, NVQ at level 4+, DipHe, foundation degree or equivalent (ISCED 5)	9	540	552
Bachelor’s degree (ISCED 6)	29	550	562
Master’s degree, doctorate or equivalent (ISCED 7 or 8)	11	566	577
Note: There were too few children whose mothers who did not attend secondary school to meet the reporting criteria for IELS and so their mean scores are not reported in this table. For a full description of the International System of Classification of Education (ISCED) levels, see http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/international-standard-classification-education-isced. NVQ = National Vocational Qualifications;
HNC = Higher National Certificate; HND = Higher National Diploma; DipHE = Diploma of Higher Education.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934098953

Figure 3.16. Differences in emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores by mother’s educational attainment, England

copy the linklink copied!Home learning environment

The home is the first major context in which children learn, develop and grow. A home environment that is supportive of early learning, in terms of both stimulating resources and interactions, is an important determinant of children’s emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes (Melhuish et al., 2008_[17]). Collecting information on children’s home learning environments was an important focus of IELS.

Children from homes with a greater number of children’s books have higher average emergent literacy and numeracy scores

Children in homes with more children’s books had, on average, higher emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores than children in homes with fewer books (Table 3.6). In England, 29 % of children came from homes with more than 100 children’s books, slightly more than the proportion in the United States (26 %) and considerably more than the 10 % of children in Estonia. Children with ten books or fewer at home had a significantly lower mean emergent literacy than children with more books than this at home. For emergent numeracy, there was no significant difference in the mean scores of children with fewer than ten books at home and those with 11-25 books, but having more children’s books than this at home was associated with higher emergent numeracy scores. The gap between the mean literacy scores of children with 10 children’s books or fewer at home and those with more than 100 books was approximately 86 points in England after accounting for SES (121 before). In emergent numeracy, the corresponding gap was 68 points after accounting for SES (104 points before).

copy the linklink copied!

Table 3.5. Number of books in the home and emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores, after accounting for SES, England
	% of children	Emergent literacy	Emergent numeracy
0-10 (Ref)	9	471	495
11 to 25	12	497	513
26 to 50	22	502	524
51 to 100	28	539	549
More than 100	29	557	563
Note: Mean scores in bold are significantly different from those of children in the reference category (children with 0-10 children’s books at home).
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934098991

Children whose parents read books and have back-and-forth conversations with them more frequently have better emergent literacy skills than children whose parents do so less frequently

Figure 3.17 shows the percentage of children whose parents engaged in a range of language and literacy-related activities at home with varying frequency. Reading from a book was the activity most likely to be engaged in most frequently (59 % of children were read to on at least five days each week), followed by having a back-and-forth conversation about how the child feels and why they feel that way (53 % of children had these conversations with their parents on at least five days each week). Parents in England were more likely to read to their children on at least five days each week than parents in either Estonia or the United States.

Children whose parents read to them from a book five to seven days a week, and children whose parents had back-and-forth conversations with them five to seven times a week had significantly higher mean emergent literacy scores than children whose parents did so less than once a week (Figure 3.18). These differences were significant before and after accounting for socio-economic status. Frequency of telling children stories (not from a book), frequency of singing songs, nursery rhymes and poems, and frequency of engaging in activities to help the child learn the alphabet were not significantly related to emergent literacy scores (neither alphabet knowledge nor print awareness were assessed in IELS). There were also no significant associations between the frequency of any literacy-related activities at home and children’s emergent numeracy scores. It is possible that activities such as singing songs, nursery rhymes and poems, and learning the alphabet were less significant for children aged five than for younger children. There is evidence that these are important for younger children’s emergent literacy (Sylva et al., 2004_[18]).

There were no significant associations between a child’s gender and the frequency with which they were read to from a book, told a story (not from a book), taken to the library or had a back-and-forth conversation with a parent about their feelings. There were significant associations between the child’s gender and the frequency with which their parents sang songs or nursery rhymes to them and with which they engaged in activities at home with a parent to learn the alphabet. In England, 63 % of girls were sung to by their parents at least three times a week, compared with 51 % of boys. Additionally, a higher proportion of girls had parents who frequently engaged in activities aimed at learning the alphabet at home. However, the association was weak and these activities were not significantly associated with children’s emergent literacy outcomes. Girls and boys engaged in those home activities significantly associated with emergent literacy scores with similar frequency.

There were statistically significant associations between socio-economic status and frequency of engagement in two literacy-related activities. In England, 35 % of children in the bottom SES quartile were read to from a book by a parent five to seven times a week, compared to 79 % of children in the top SES quartile. Children in the top SES quartile were somewhat more likely to engage in back-and-forth conversations five to seven times a week (56 %) than children in the bottom quartile (49 %), although the association was weak.

Figure 3.17. Frequency of engagement in literacy-related activities at home, England

Figure 3.18. Differences in emergent literacy scores by engagement in literacy-related activities at home, England

Most children have parents who engage in numeracy-related activities with them at home on at least one day a week

Figure 3.19 shows the percentage of children whose parents engaged in numeracy-related activities at home with them with varying frequency. Just one in ten children had parents who said they played with numbers, counting, measuring or shapes less than once a week with their child, and just 7 % had parents who said they engaged in activities designed to help them learn numbers less than once a week. Children whose parents did activities at home with them to learn numbers on at least five days each week had a significantly higher mean emergent numeracy score than children whose parents never or hardly ever did such activities (Figure 3.20). There were no significant associations between frequency of these numeracy-related activities at home and children’s emergent literacy scores.

Figure 3.19. Frequency of engagement in numeracy-related activities at home, England

Figure 3.20. Differences in emergent numeracy scores by engagement in numeracy-related activities at home, England

There were also no significant associations between a child’s gender and the frequency with which their parents engaged in these activities with them at home. In addition, there were no significant associations between frequency of engagement with these activities and socio-economic status.

Children who attend special or extra-cost activities have higher average emergent literacy and numeracy scores than those that do not, even after accounting for socio-economic status

Parents were also asked how often their five-year-old attended a special or extra-cost activity outside of the home (such as a sports activity, dance, scouts, swimming lessons, language lessons). In England, 20 % of five-year-olds for whom information was available never participated in such activities, 15 % did so less than once a week, 47 % did so once or twice a week, 16 % did so three to four days a week, and 2 % did so on five or more days a week. After accounting for socio-economic status, children who never attended such special or extra-cost activities had mean literacy and numeracy scores that were generally significantly lower than those of children who did attend such activities, with the highest mean associated with attending three to four days a week (Figure 3.21).

Children whose parents are more strongly involved in their schools have better emergent literacy and numeracy scores, on average, than children whose parents are less involved, even after accounting for socio-economic status

In England, 69 % of five-year-olds in the IELS sample had educators who indicated that the child’s parents were either moderately or strongly involved in activities taking place at the school, and 31 % had parents who were described as not involved or only slightly involved. Examples of activities included school fetes, concerts/plays, parents’ evenings and parental workshops. Children whose parents were described as moderately or strongly involved had a mean emergent literacy score that was 42 points higher than the scores of children with parents described as not involved or only slightly involved. After accounting for socio-economic status, children whose parents were moderately or strongly involved, according to educators, had an advantage of 28 points in emergent literacy, on average, over children whose parents were described as being less involved. This difference was statistically significant. Similarly, children whose parents were reported by educators as being more involved had a significantly higher mean emergent numeracy score, even after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 3.22).

Figure 3.21. Differences in emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores by engagement in special or extra-cost activities outside the home, England

Figure 3.22. Differences in emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores by parental involvement in school activities, England

Children who never use digital devices have mean emergent literacy scores that are lower than those of children who use them with moderate frequency but are not different from children who use them more frequently

In England, 39 % of five-year-olds in IELS for whom information was available used a desktop or laptop computer, tablet device or smartphone every day, the same proportion as in Estonia and lower than the 49 % in the United States. A further 46 % used a device at least once a week, while 9 % did so at least once a month and 6 % never or hardly ever used such devices.

After accounting for socio-economic status, children who never used digital devices had a mean emergent numeracy score that was not significantly different from the mean scores of children who did use them, regardless of frequency of use. However, children who never or hardly ever used devices had a significantly lower mean emergent literacy scores than children who did so at least monthly, but less than weekly (Figure 3.23). There was no significant difference in the mean emergent literacy scores of children who hardly ever or never used devices and those who did so weekly or daily. The same patterns of association between frequency of digital device use and emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes (i.e. no association with numeracy scores, highest mean literacy score among children with moderate digital device use) were also found in the United States. In Estonia, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of children who never used digital devices and those who did so, in either domain.

Figure 3.23. Differences in emergent literacy scores by use of digital devices, England

copy the linklink copied!ECEC background and emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes

Almost all children in England attend ECEC, with age of first entry not related to emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes at age five

In England, almost all five-year-olds for whom information was available (98 %) had attended an ISCED 013 ECEC setting in the school year before data were collected. Among these children, 71 % first attended before the age of three and 29 % first attended at age three or four. Attendance varied by socio-economic status, with children from lower SES backgrounds attending at lower rates than children from higher SES backgrounds at every age from birth to age four.

After accounting for socio-economic status, there was no significant difference in the early emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes of children who first attended ECEC before the age of three and those who first attended later. Children who attended for more than 20 hours at the age of one had a significantly higher mean score in emergent literacy than children who attended for less than 20 hours or who did not attend at age one, after accounting for socio-economic status. However, this was the only significant relationship between intensity of ECEC attendance and scores in either emergent literacy or emergent numeracy.

copy the linklink copied!Assessing the combined effects of child, family and ECEC characteristics on emergent literacy and emergent numeracy outcomes

Analyses in this chapter have so far looked at relationships between emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes and a series of background characteristics individually, or sometimes after accounting for the effects of a third variable (such as socio-economic status). This section examines the effects of these characteristics in combination. In order to do this, variables that were significantly related to emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes when examined individually were used in two regression models (one for emergent literacy and one for emergent numeracy) to assess how well they explained variation in the outcomes. Variables that were not significant in the models were removed one at a time14 until all remaining variables were significantly related to the outcome. It should be noted that no causal attribution can be made on the basis of these analyses.

A combination of individual and home background characteristics significantly predict the early literacy outcomes of children in England

Eleven variables were significant predictors in the final model of emergent literacy (Table 3.6). Each month of increasing age was associated with an average increase in emergent literacy scores of 7 points. Girls had an advantage of 11 points over boys, on average, or the equivalent of just under two months of typical emergent literacy development at age five in England. All else being equal, children with an immigrant background had a mean score that was 40 points lower than the scores of other children, or around five and a half months of development. A one standard deviation increase in socio-economic status was associated with an increase of 17 score points in emergent literacy.

Children with learning difficulties, or with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties had scores that were 51 and 31 points lower, on average, than other children, all else being equal. These equate to differences of around seven months and four months in typical emergent literacy development, respectively.

Children with one sibling and children with no siblings did not differ significantly in their mean emergent literacy scores, but having two or three siblings was associated with lower scores, all else being equal.

Children with more than 50 children’s books at home had a significantly higher mean emergent literacy score than children with 10 books or fewer at home, when the effects of other variables in the model were accounted for. Holding all other variables in the model constant, children who used digital devices at least monthly (but not weekly) had a mean score that was 35 points higher (or around five months of development), on average, than children who hardly ever or never used such devices and 21 points higher (or around three months of development) than children who used them weekly (but not daily).

Children who never attended special or extra-cost activities outside the home (such as sport, dance, swimming lessons) had significantly lower scores than children who did so on between once and four days a week on average, when all other variables in the model were held constant; the scores of those who never did so and those who did so on more than four days a week did not differ significantly

All else being equal, children with parents who were moderately or strongly involved in activities at school had a mean emergent literacy score that was 21 points higher than children whose parents were not involved or only slightly involved. This equates to approximately three months of typical emergent literacy development at age five in England.

The final model explains 35 % of the variance in emergent literacy outcomes of five-year-olds in England.15

A combination of individual and home background factors significantly predict children’s early numeracy outcomes

Ten explanatory variables were significant in the final model of emergent numeracy (Table 3.7). Each month of increasing age was associated with an average increase of 10 points in emergent numeracy. All else being equal, children who had experienced low birth weight or prematurity had a mean emergent numeracy score that was 26 points lower than other children, or around two and a half months of typical emergent numeracy development at age five in England. Having social, emotional or behavioural difficulties was associated with an average disadvantage of 44 points (or over four months of typical emergent numeracy development), all else being equal, while having learning difficulties was associated with an average disadvantage of 35 points (around three and a half months of development).

Children with 10 children’s books or fewer at home had significantly lower mean emergent numeracy scores than children with more than 25 books at home. The gap between the scores of children with 10 children’s books or fewer and those with more than 100 books was equivalent to 54 points on the emergent numeracy scale, all else being equal, equating to five months of typical emergent numeracy development in England at age five.

All else being equal, children with four siblings had an emergent numeracy score that was 42 points lower than that of children with no siblings.

In the final model, having parents who were moderately or strongly involved in activities at school was associated with a 20-point advantage in emergent numeracy over having parents who were not involved or only slightly involved, equating to around two months of typical emergent numeracy development.

A one standard deviation increase in socio-economic status was associated with an increase in emergent numeracy score of 17 points.

Children whose parents engaged in activities with them to help them learn numbers had a significantly higher mean score than children whose parents never did so, all else being equal. Children who never attended special or extra-cost activities (such as dance lessons, language lessons, sport) had significantly lower emergent numeracy scores, on average, than children who did so between once and four times a week (Table 3.8), after accounting for all other variables in the model. However, there was no significant difference between the mean score of children who did these activities more than four times a week and those who never did them. The final model explained 33 % of the variance in the emergent numeracy outcomes of five-year-olds in England.

copy the linklink copied!

Table 3.6. Results of the multiple regression model of emergent literacy, England
VARIABLE	Regression coefficient	Standard error	p
Age (months)	7.42	0.64	0.00
Boy	- 11.17	3.86	0.00
Immigrant background	- 39.61	7.84	0.00
Learning difficulties	- 51.08	9.09	0.00
Social, emotional or behavioural difficulties	- 30.84	11.61	0.01
Socio-economic status (standardised)	16.9	2.85	0.00
Children’s books in the home (reference category: 10 or fewer)
11 to 25	11.5	13.4	0.39
26 to 50	12.48	12.82	0.33
51 to 100	40.26	11.27	0.00
More than 100	56.86	11.57	0.00
Number of siblings (reference category: no siblings)
One	11.68	6.7	0.81
Two	- 14.4	7.04	0.04
Three	- 29.93	9.51	0.00
Four	- 22.49	14.5	0.12
Moderate or strong parental involvement at school* 21.16 5.91 0.00
Information on parental involvement missing	2.54	7.92	0.75
Frequency of using digital devices at home (reference category: at least monthly, but not weekly)
Hardly ever or never	- 34.7	12.29	0.01
At least weekly, but not daily	- 21.24	8.67	0.01
Every day	- 14.03	8.76	0.11
Frequency of attending special or extra-cost activities (reference category: never)
Less than once a week	15.76	8.99	0.08
1-2 days a week	21.5	7.44	0.00
3-4 days a week	26.53	9.25	0.00
5-7 days a week	12.04	13.78	0.38
Constant**	483.57	16.58
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
← * Variable has a missing indicator to preserve cases in the dataset.
← ** The constant is the estimated emergent literacy score of a child in the reference category of each categorical variable, aged 5 years 0 months and with a mean value for socio-economic status.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934099143

copy the linklink copied!Relationships between emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes and outcomes in other learning domains

Children’s early language and numeracy skills are developed at the same time as children are developing a host of other skills, including self-regulation and social-emotional competencies. Development in each of these areas is theorised to be mutually reinforcing. Young children with better language ability, for example, may be better able to engage successfully with their peers in interactions that support their prosocial development. Better prosocial skills may lead to further opportunities to interact with others in ways that support children’s vocabulary development and oral comprehension. As IELS assessed a broad range of children’s early learning outcomes, it enables relationships between these learning domains at the age of five to be examined.

copy the linklink copied!

Table 3.7. Results of the multiple regression model of emergent numeracy, England
VARIABLE	Regression coefficient	Standard error	p
Age (months)	9.87	0.63	0.00
Low birth weight or premature birth	- 26.22	6.45	0.00
Learning difficulties	- 34.99	9.93	0.00
Social, emotional or behavioural difficulties	- 44.44	11.37	0.00
Socio-economic status (standardised)	16.81	2.93	0.00
Number of siblings (reference category: no siblings)
One	- 9.53	6.26	0.13
Two	- 12.94	7.09	0.07
Three	- 7.00	12.44	0.57
Four	- 42.19	13.43	0.00
Children’s books in the home (reference category: 10 or fewer)
11 to 25	7.45	12.28	0.54
26 to 50	25.81	11.82	0.03
51 to 100	43.49	11.63	0.00
More than 100	54.40	10.68	0.00
Moderate or strong parental involvement at school*	20.09	6.05	0.00
Information on parental involvement missing	3.28	8.1	0.69
Frequency of attending special or extra-cost activities (reference category: never)
Less than once a week	10.41	9.28	0.26
1-2 days a week	21.12	7.87	0.01
3-4 days a week	25.09	8.19	0.00
5-7 days a week	12.77	13.32	0.34
Frequency of activities at home to learn numbers (reference category: less than once a week)
1-2 days a week	5.84	9.38	0.53
3-4 days a week	5.15	9.51	0.59
5-7 days a week	24.20	10.08	0.02
Constant**	430.66	16.85
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
← * Variable has a missing indicator to preserve cases in the dataset.
← ** The constant is the estimated emergent numeracy score of a child in the reference category of each categorical variable, aged 5 years 0 months and with a mean value for socio-economic status.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934099162

Emergent literacy and emergent numeracy are strongly related to each other, as well as positively related to self-regulation and social-emotional development

Figure 3.24 shows the correlations between emergent literacy scores and scores in other learning domains assessed in IELS in England. Emergent literacy and emergent numeracy were strongly16 positively correlated (r = 0.83). There were also moderate to strong correlations between emergent literacy and the self-regulation sub-domains of working memory and mental flexibility. Correlations between emergent literacy and most social-emotional sub-domains were weaker (with the exception of emotion identification), although still statistically significant and positive.

Emergent numeracy scores correlated most strongly with working memory, mental flexibility and emotion identification. Correlations between emergent numeracy and educator assessments of prosocial behaviour, disruptive behaviour and trust were weaker (Figure 3.25).

Figure 3.24. Correlations between emergent literacy scores and other learning domains, England

Figure 3.25. Correlations between emergent numeracy scores and other learning domains, England

copy the linklink copied!Summary and conclusions

The mean emergent literacy score of five-year old children in England was significantly higher than the score in the United States and did not differ significantly from the score in Estonia. The mean emergent numeracy score in England was significantly higher than the mean scores of both Estonia and the United States.

Gender differences in emergent literacy and emergent numeracy skills in England were similar in direction and magnitude to those in Estonia and the United States. Five-year-old girls had a higher mean emergent literacy score than five-year-old boys. Girls and boys had similar emergent numeracy scores at age five.

As in other participating countries, very low proportions of children were rated as below average in their language and mathematical development by their parents. A higher proportion of children were rated as having below average development by their educators than by their parents. Girls were more likely than boys to be rated as having above average language and mathematical development.

Children in England were roughly equally likely as children in the United States and Estonia to have been identified by their parents as having had low birth weight or premature birth, learning difficulties, or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. In all three participating countries, boys were significantly more likely than girls to have experienced learning or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties by the age of five. Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds were significantly more likely to have had learning or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties than those from higher socio-economic backgrounds.

In England, socio-economic status was significantly associated with early literacy and numeracy as assessed in IELS. The association was stronger than in Estonia, where gaps between children based on socio-economic status were much smaller. Gaps in emergent literacy scores between children based on socio-economic status were similar in size in England and the United States, but the gap in emergent numeracy scores was smaller in England than in the United States.

In England, five-year-olds in one-parent and two-parent households did not differ significantly in their early literacy skills, after accounting for socio-economic status, although children in one-parent families had a lower mean emergent numeracy score than children in two-parent families. Children with one sibling had similar emergent literacy and numeracy skills as children with no siblings and those with two siblings. Having four or more siblings was associated with lower emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores, even after accounting for socio-economic status.

Children with at least one parent at home who primarily spoke a language other than English had significantly lower mean emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores than other children, after accounting for socio-economic status. Similarly, children from immigrant backgrounds (i.e. having both parents born outside the country, or one parent in the case of one-parent households) had lower mean emergent literacy scores than other children, even after accounting for socio-economic status and home language. There were no significant differences in the early numeracy outcomes of children with and without an immigrant background after accounting for socio-economic status and home language.

Parents’ educational attainment was associated with children’s emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes in England. Children whose mothers held bachelor’s degrees had significantly higher mean emergent literacy and numeracy scores than other children, even after accounting for household income.

A number of parental practices were associated with children’s emergent literacy and numeracy scores. Children whose parents read to them several times a week and had back-and-forth conversations with them more frequently had better emergent literacy development as assessed in IELS than children whose parents did so less frequently, after accounting for socio-economic status. Additionally, children whose parents frequently engaged in activities with the child designed to help them learn numbers had higher mean emergent numeracy scores than children whose parents did so less frequently. Finally, children whose parents were described by their educators as more strongly involved in their children’s education had better outcomes in both IELS emergent literacy and emergent numeracy, regardless of socio-economic status.

Attending special or extra-cost activities outside the home (e.g. sports, dance lessons, language lessons) was associated with higher scores in both emergent literacy and emergent numeracy, regardless of socio-economic status. Moderate use of digital devices at home was associated with higher literacy scores, after accounting for socio-economic status. The mean scores of children who used these devices every day and those who hardly ever or never used them did not differ significantly from each other, but were lower than those who used them with at least monthly, but not weekly.

In England, almost all children had attended ECEC before starting school. Approximately three in four of these children first attended before the age of three. Children of higher socio-economic backgrounds started attending earlier and for longer than children of lower socio-economic backgrounds. Differences between the emergent literacy and emergent numeracy skills of children who started earlier and those who started later were not significant after accounting for socio-economic background. When looked at in combination, significant predictors of emergent literacy outcomes in England were:

a child’s age in months
gender
immigrant background
number of children’s books at home
learning difficulties
social, emotional or behavioural difficulties
socio-economic status, number of siblings
frequency of attendance of special or extra-cost activities outside the home
frequency of using digital devices
level of parental involvement at school.

Specifically, being older, being a girl, coming from a higher socio-economic background, having more than 50 children’s books at home, not having an immigrant background, not having learning difficulties, not having social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, having fewer siblings, having parents with higher levels of school involvement, having more frequent attendance of special or extra-cost activities outside of the home, and having moderate use of digital devices were all associated with higher emergent literacy scores, when these variables were examined in combination.

Predictors of children’s outcomes in emergent numeracy were:

age in months
low birth weight or premature birth
learning difficulties
social, emotional or behavioural difficulties
number of siblings
number of children’s books at home
socio-economic status
parental school involvement
frequency of attendance at special or extra-cost activities outside of the home
frequency of engaging in activities at home with parents to learn numbers.

Specifically, being older, having had normal birth weight and not being born prematurely, not having learning difficulties, not having social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, having fewer siblings, having more than 50 children’s books at home, more frequently attending special or extra-cost activities, having parents who were more involved in activities at school, and engaging in numeracy activities at home with the greatest frequency were all associated with higher emergent numeracy scores at age five in England.

Predictors common to both emergent literacy and emergent numeracy, then, were age, learning difficulties, social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, number of siblings, number of children’s books at home, attendance of special or extra-cost activities, socio-economic status, and level of parental involvement in school activities. Gender, immigrant background, and frequency of use of digital devices were significant in the emergent literacy model only. Low birth weight or premature birth was a significant predictor of emergent numeracy scores, but not of emergent literacy.

The emergent literacy and numeracy skills of five-year-olds in England were also significantly positively related to their social-emotional development and their self-regulation skills, in line with previous research that suggests that these skills are mutually reinforcing. Children’s outcomes in these other learning domains are explored in Chapter 4 (on self-regulation) and Chapter 5 (on social-emotional learning).

References

[16] De La Rochebrochard, E. and H. Joshi (2013), “Siblings and child development”, Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, Vol. 4/3, pp. 276-287, https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v4i3.248.

[14] Downey, D. (2001), “Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56/6, pp. 497-504, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.497.

[1] Duncan, G. et al. (2007), “School Readiness and Later Achievement”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 43/6, pp. 1428-1446, https://doi.org/10.1037/[0012-1649.43.6.1428].supp.

[6] Kautz, T. et al. (2014), Fostering and Measuring Skills: Improving Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Skills to Promote Lifetime Success, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w20749.

[15] Lawson, D. and R. Mace (2009), “Trade-offs in modern parenting: a longitudinal study of sibling competition for parental care”, Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 30/3, pp. 170-183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.12.001.

[9] Lê-Scherban, F. et al. (2014), “Does academic achievement during childhood and adolescence benefit later health?”, Annals of Epidemiology, Vol. 24/5, pp. 344-355, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNEPIDEM.2014.02.008.

[17] Melhuish, E. et al. (2008), “Effects of the Home Learning Environment and Preschool Center Experience upon Literacy and Numeracy Development in Early Primary School”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 64/1, pp. 95-114, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00550.x.

[13] OECD (2020), Income inequality (indicator), https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/459aa7f1-en (accessed on 29 January 2020).

[4] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

[10] OECD (2016), Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258051-en.

[5] OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

[11] Raghubar, K. and M. Barnes (2017), Early numeracy skills in preschool-aged children: a review of neurocognitive findings and implications for assessment and intervention, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1259387.

[2] Reynolds, A. et al. (2002), “Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 24/4, pp. 267-303, https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024004267.

[7] Rigney, D. (2010), The Matthew effect: how advantage begets further advantage, Columbia University Press.

[8] Ritchie, S. and T. Bates (2013), “Enduring Links From Childhood Mathematics and Reading Achievement to Adult Socioeconomic Status”, Psychological Science, Vol. 24/7, pp. 1301-1308, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268.

[3] Schweinhart, L. (2013), “Long-term follow-up of a preschool experiment”, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 9/4, pp. 389-409, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9190-3.

[12] Snow, C. and T. Matthews (2016), Reading and Language in the Early Grades, http://www.futureofchildren.org (accessed on 5 December 2019).

[18] Sylva, K. et al. (2004), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report: A Longitudinal Study Funded by the DfES 1997-2004, Institute of Education, University of London/ Department for Education and Skills/Sure Start, http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10005309/ (accessed on 13 June 2019).

Notes

← 1. Scoring at or below proficiency level 1 in PISA reading.

← 2. Scoring at or below proficiency level 1 in the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) reading.

← 3. Scoring at or below proficiency level 1 in PIAAC numeracy.

← 4. Beck, McKeown and Kucan (2013) propose a three-tier model of vocabulary development, where Tier 1 words are common words used in everyday speech (e.g. table, blue), Tier 2 words are high-frequency words that occur across contexts and are more common in written than spoken language (e.g. compare, coincidence). Tier 3 words are low-frequency words used in domain-specific contexts (e.g. thesis, ecosystem).

← 5. For more information, see the IELS assessment framework (OECD, 2020).

← 6. To meet the standards for reporting mean scores in IELS, a subgroup of children must contain at least 30 children, and these children must have been sampled from at least five centres or schools. While 41 children in the England sample were aged 4 years 11 months at the time of the assessment, there were too few children of this age to meet the reporting criteria in Estonia and the United States. The mean scores of children aged 4 years 11 months are therefore not considered separately in this analysis.

← 7. A birth weight lower than 5lbs 5oz/2.5 kg was defined as low.

← 8. Where educational attainment information was available for two parents, the higher of the two was used.

← 9. The Gini coefficient is a measure of income or wealth distribution, where 1 corresponds to maximal inequality and 0 represents perfect equality.

← 10. The IELS assessments were administered only in English in England and children were not screened for English language proficiency before participation.

← 11. Defined has having two parents who were born in a country other than that in which the child participated in IELS, or one parent if information was only provided for one parent.

← 12. The term “effect” is used in a statistical sense only. No causal attributions can be made on the basis of IELS data.

← 13. According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), ISCED 0 programmes are pre-primary programmes situated in institutional settings and that contain an intentional education component, among other criteria. ISCED 01 captures participation by very young children (aged 0 to 2), and ISCED 02 captures participation by slightly older children (aged 3 to 5).

← 14. In order of descending p-value.

← 15. The explained variance explained by all the predictors in the model except the missing indicator variable for the parental involvement variable.

← 16. A correlation coefficient lower than 0.20 is considered relatively weak, between 0.20 and 0.49 is considered moderately strong, between 0.50 and 0.79 is considered strong and greater than 0.8 is considered very strong.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

https://doi.org/10.1787/c235abf9-en

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.

╳

: Early Learning and Child Well-being in England:

Continue to open the publication page on OECD iLibrary to find:

All available formats

Buy option for print or PDF copies

All publication details?

Cancel