This chapter presents findings on the social-emotional outcomes of five-year-olds in England. It shows the differences in social-emotional scores across multiple subgroups of children, considering their individual and family characteristics, as well as their home learning environments. This is based on a direct assessment of children’s outcomes and reports from the children’s parents and educators.
Early Learning and Child Well‑being in England
Abstract
Children develop their capacity to experience and express emotions starting in early infancy. This happens as they grow physically and cognitively, and as they start to develop their language and problem-solving skills (Thompson, 2001[1]). Recent research in neuroscience has shown that the same neural circuits involved in the regulation of emotions overlap with those associated with cognitive processing (Bush, Luu and Posner, 2000[2]; Davidson et al., 2002[3]; Posner and Rothbart, 2000[4]).
Emotions can support cognitive development when they are well-regulated and can interfere with cognitive development when they are not. For instance, children who do not feel in control of their emotions are more prone to outbursts, inattention and rapid retreats from stressful situations (Garber and Dodge, 1991[5]). Children’s beliefs and their neural mechanisms of attention are interrelated components in childhood development (Schroder et al., 2017[6]).
Early social-emotional skills are strong predictors of later health, education, social and labour-market outcomes
The ability to understand emotions is a unique, concurrent predictor of academic success (Leerkes et al., 2008[7]). Early prosocial behaviour at age eight is shown to be as important as early cognitive ability in predicting educational attainment at age 30 (Schoon et al., 2015[8]), and in shaping attainment in adolescence and adulthood (Caprara et al., 2000[9]). Social-emotional skills developed during childhood are linked to educational achievement, even after controlling for early literacy and numeracy skills (Duncan et al., 2007[10]). For example, children’s early skills in identifying and responding empathetically to others’ emotions have been found to predict concept knowledge and language competence, even after controlling for age, gender and parental income level (Rhoades et al., 2011[11]; Garner and Waajid, 2008[12]).
Underdeveloped emotion identification skills in early adolescence predict increases in fear, decreases in positive emotions and decreases in the quality and quantity of social support. Amongst boys, low emotion identification skills also predict increased feelings of sadness (Ciarrochi, Heaven and Supavadeeprasit, 2008[13]). Early empathy, trust and prosocial behaviours are associated with social justice beliefs and a lower likelihood of involvement in crime and delinquency in adulthood (Schoon et al., 2015[8]). Low empathy is also associated with antisocial and delinquent behaviours and an increased risk of psychopathology as adults (Fontaine et al., 2011[14]). Sympathy and moral reasoning among 6- to 9-year-olds are associated with social justice values at age 12 (Daniel et al., 2014[15]).
Children’s emotional health is the strongest predictor of adult life satisfaction at all ages, even more than family economic resources, family psychosocial resources and children’s cognitive ability (Flèche, Lekfuangfu and Clark, 2019[16]). Early emotional well-being is linked with better mental health in later life, and emotional difficulties at age five are predictors of midlife psychological disorders such as anxiety and depression (Rutter, Kim-Cohen and Maughan, 2006[17]; Buchanan, Flouri and Brinke, 2002[18]).
Social-emotional learning is the process through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for and towards others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (CASEL, 2015[19]; Weissberg et al., 2015[20]).
Social-emotional development is the continuous process of learning social-emotional skills. Similar to emergent literacy and numeracy skills, developing these skills in childhood and throughout adulthood is important for their effect on personal, academic and life outcomes.
Social-emotional skills are individual characteristics that 1) link biological predispositions and environmental factors; 2) are expressed through consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviours; 3) develop through formal and informal learning experiences; and 4) influence important socio-economic outcomes throughout life (De Fruyt and Wille, 2015[21]). The term is increasingly prevalent in policy discussions that emphasise improving these skills through learning. Other terms such as “21st Century Skills”, “non-cognitive skills”, “employability skills” and “personality characteristics” often refer to the same concept. For further discussion about their overlaps and differences, see Abrahams et al. (2019[22]) and Kankaraš and Suarez-Alvarez (2019[23]).
IELS provides a direct measure of children’s emotion identification and attribution, and an indirect measure of prosocial behaviour, trust and non-disruptive behaviour
Parents and educators responded to survey questions about the child’s prosocial behaviour, trust and disruptive behaviours. Children in the study participated in an interactive tablet-based assessment of their empathy skills in a one-on-one setting with a trained study administrator.
Measuring empathy entailed the assessment of two skills: emotion identification and emotion attribution in response to a story about a set of characters. Children responded to hypothetical (story) scenarios, with cartoon-like children in brief vignettes. The empathy measure required the child to identify an emotion using emoticons representing happy, sad, afraid, angry and surprised. The emotion identification scores reflected children’s ability to recognise the emotions of others (i.e. how did the story character feel?). The emotion attribution scores reflected the interaction of concordant emotional responses (i.e. when the child’s responses matched the emotion of the story character) and his or her own emotion attribution (i.e. how the child felt and why they felt that way in response to the story).
IELS also measured prosocial behaviours, trust and non-disruptive behaviours indirectly through reports from parents and educators. The items for assessing prosocial behaviours and non-disruptive behaviours were based on the Adaptive Social Behaviour Inventory (Hogan, Scott and Bauer, 1992[24]) while those for trust were based on existing frameworks (Baumrind, 1968[25]; Roberts, Strayer and Denham, 2014[26]). Prosocial behaviour was composed of items such as the child “understands others’ feelings, such as when they are happy, sad or angry”. Disruptive behaviour was composed of items such as the child “fights with other children”, which was positively inverted for easier interpretation (i.e. a higher score means less disruptive). Trust was composed of items such as the child “approaches familiar adults for comfort when upset”.
This chapter compares educator and parent ratings on children’s behaviours related to their social-emotional skills. Parents may have better knowledge of their child in a wider set of situations than educators, while educators have a larger reference group to compare each child with than parents. Children may also behave differently in different environments.
Educators’ ratings on children’s behaviours were more closely related to the direct assessment of social-emotional skills, and their scores were aggregated into a single score for prosocial behaviours, trust, and non-disruptive behaviours, and scaled together with the results for the other early leaning domains in this study. Educators’ indirect assessments are, therefore, internationally standardised with a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100.
IELS measures of social-emotional skills are interrelated
An important component of prosocial behaviour and getting along with others is being able to recognise and understand the emotions of others (Strayer, 1987[27]; Strayer, 1993[28]). Both emotion identification and emotion attribution act, therefore, as precursors to engaging in prosocial behaviour in response to another person’s emotional state (Hinnant and O’Brien, 2007[29]). At the same time, it is important to note that prosocial behaviour goes one-step further as it also includes the expression of positive social behaviours. For example, the child “tries to comfort others when they are upset”.
The central aspect of trust in IELS is the child’s expectations that others will be supportive, responsive and kind (Bowlby, 1969[30]). Children develop their first relationships with adults, peers, and friends in early childhood. When these first relationships are consistent, predictable, and responsive to their needs, children are more likely to develop secure attachments that help them to acquire and reinforce their trust in known people and themselves (Bowlby, 1969[30]). It is important to clarify that trust does not imply that children are indiscriminately developing secure attachments, but that they develop trust because of frequent and repeated positive interaction with close adults. Reassuring expressions from caregivers (which nurture a child’s secure attachment) can support children to continue to play comfortably, while anxious expressions (which are associated with a child’s insecure attachments) might interfere in children’s trust and playful interactions and, ultimately, hamper their development (Baldwin and Moses, 1996[31]). Mistrustful children might be overly wary or fearful of peers or adults; a child might be reluctant to engage with others, or be needy and dependent since s/he does not trust others to be responsive and supportive. As shown in this chapter, children’s trust is associated with adaptive social behaviour, such as the expression of prosocial and non-disruptive behaviour.
The average five-year-old in England is less able to identify others’ emotions than children in Estonia, although they are considered less disruptive by their educators
When presented with a range of stories and situations, children in England were less able to identify others’ feelings than children in Estonia, but had similar abilities to children in the United States. The mean for five-year-olds in England on emotion identification was 497 points, which is significantly lower than Estonia (511) and not significantly different from to the United States (493). Children’s ability to recognise emotions is a precursor of their ability to feel empathy for others. In emotion attribution, where the score reflects children’s own emotions, children in England scored at a similar level to children in the United States and Estonia.
According to educators, children in England had significantly lower prosocial behaviour (495) than children in Estonia (511), but were similar to children in the United States (494). However, educators in England rated children as significantly less disruptive than children in Estonia (515 compared to 470), and the same as children in the United States (515). Educators in the three participating countries rated children’s trust at similar levels. The distributions of social-emotional scores in England are shown in Figure 5.1.
Note: Graphs produced using the first plausible value only. Please refer to the IELS technical report for additional information regarding plausible values.
Social-emotional learning is interrelated in both the direct and the indirect assessments
Table 5.1 shows the association between the social-emotional skills measured in the direct assessment and those measured in the indirect assessment. For the direct assessment of empathy, both emotion identification and emotion attribution were strongly correlated (r=0.61). For the indirect assessments (both educators and parents), the association between trust and non-disruptive behaviour was moderately strong, as was the association between prosocial behaviour and non-disruptive behaviour. The strongest association was between prosocial behaviour and trust. These results were similar to the overall values across participating countries in IELS (in brackets in the table).
The association between the direct assessment of children and educators’ indirect assessment is moderately strong. The direct assessment provides children’s scores on emotion identification and emotion attribution, while the indirect assessment provides educators’ views on children’s prosocial behaviour, trust and non-disruptive behaviour. Examples of prosocial behaviour include “the child understands others’ feelings” and “tries to comfort others when they are upset”. While the first statement is more closely associated with the tasks presented in the direct assessment, the second statement includes a positive behaviour. Examples of trust include the child “approaches familiar adults for comfort when upset”) and examples of disruptive behaviours include the child “fights with other children”). Although these behaviours still relate to the tasks presented in the direct assessment, they are more distal behaviours from emotion identification and emotion attribution than prosocial behaviour.
Educator evaluations of children’s prosocial behaviour, trust and non-disruptive behaviour were relatively correlated with IELS direct assessments of children’s emotion identification and emotion attribution. On the other hand, the association between educators’ and parents’ indirect assessments is moderate while the association between parents’ ratings and the direct assessment of children’s social-emotional skills is weak. As previously mentioned, it is important to highlight that these domains are conceptually overlapped, but not exactly the same.
Note: This table shows the correlation coefficients between the social-emotional skills in England (using child weights) and, in brackets, the overall values across participating countries in IELS (using senate weights).
Parents give more positive ratings of their children’s empathy skills than educators but both rate children’s emotional control similarly
In addition to the direct assessment of emotion identification and emotion attribution, parents and educators also rated children’s development in empathy (e.g. the child is considerate, helpful, caring) and emotional control (e.g. the child controls emotions, waits patiently for something he or she wants). Parents were more likely to rate children’s empathy skills as more developed (Figure 5.2). However, both parents and educators rated children’s emotional control similarly. Parents in Estonia and the United States also rated children’s empathy skills as more developed than did educators.
Note: The figure compares the same children as rated by their educators and parents.
Girls have better average social-emotional skills than boys
Figure 5.3 shows that, on average, girls had better social-emotional learning outcomes than boys in emotion identification, emotion attribution, prosocial behaviour, trust and non-disruptive behaviour. The differences between boys and girls were statistically significant for the direct and indirect assessments. Educators reported higher gender differences in prosocial behaviour than were found in the direct assessment.
Both parents and educators reported girls as having more developed empathy and emotional control than boys (Figure 5.4). This difference also existed in Estonia and the United States. Parents were also more likely than educators to rate children’s empathy skills as better developed regardless of their gender. On average, across social-emotional outcomes, the gender gap in England was greater than in the United States, but similar to that in Estonia.
Note: The mean differences are statistically significant.
Note: The figure is comparing the same children rated by their educators and parents.
The gender gap is particularly large in trust among children from the bottom socio-economic status quartile than among those from the top quartile
Figure 5.5 shows the differences between girls and boys by socio-economic status (i.e. top quartile versus bottom quartile). On average, girls had better social-emotional learning outcomes than boys across these subgroups of children, but children from the bottom quartile of socio-economic status had larger gender gaps than were seen among children from the top quartile. For example, in trust, there was a gender gap of 37 points in the bottom quartile, while in the top quartile the difference was not statistically significant. The largest gender gap was in prosocial behaviour for children in the bottom quartile. For non-disruptive behaviour, the gap is indeed higher for the top quartile although the gap in both the top and bottom are statistically significant. Such difference also existed in Estonia and the United States.
Note: Bottom refers to the bottom quartile of socio-economic-status and top to the top quartile of socio-economic status. Darker-coloured markers indicate that the difference is statistically significant.
Children’s social-emotional learning outcomes increase slightly with age
In England, the average difference between the oldest and youngest children was 91 points for emotion identification (an average of about 6-point gain per month of age) and 62 points for emotion attribution (average of about 5-point gain per month of age). Figure 5.6 shows the social-emotional learning outcomes by children’s age in months at the time of assessment. The data indicate a small but significant positive correlation between children’s age in months and the direct assessment of their social-emotional learning outcomes. In England, the correlation was 0.24 for emotion identification and 0.17 for emotion attribution. Differences by age were smaller in the indirect assessment: the correlation was significant for prosocial behaviour and not statistically significant for trust and non-disruptive behaviour. The data show similar correlations between age and social-emotional learning outcomes for boys and girls.
Having social, emotional or behavioural difficulties is more strongly associated with lower social-emotional learning outcomes, especially more disruptive behaviour, than having a low birth weight or having learning difficulties
Parents in IELS provided information on whether their child had experienced low birth weight or premature birth, learning difficulties, or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. The child’s ECEC centre provided information on whether the child had special educational needs.
Parents of 11 % of children in England reported that their children had experienced low birth weight (under 5 lb 5 oz/2.5 kg) or premature birth, which was similar to the other two participating countries. Children with learning difficulties (e.g. speech or language delay, intellectual disability) in England represented 10 % of children, which was 3 percentage points lower than in the United States and similar to Estonia. Children with emotional difficulties (e.g. social, emotional or behavioural difficulties) represented 8 % of children in England, which was approximately 2 percentage points lower than in Estonia and the United States. Children with special educational needs (e.g. cognitive, behavioural or emotional disability) represented 6 % of children with parent-level information in England, which was approximately 2 percentage points lower than in Estonia (the United States had no available data).
In England, boys were more likely than girls to be identified by their parents as having learning difficulties (13 % of boys and 6 % of girls); having social, emotional or behavioural difficulties (10 % of boys and 7 % of girls); and having special educational needs (8 % of boys and 4 % of girls). The data showed no significant gender differences in social-emotional learning scores between children with and without these difficulties, after accounting for socio-economic status.1
Overall, 16 % of children with available parent-level information in England had experienced one of these three challenges, 5 % had experienced two and less than 1 % had experienced all three. In other words, 78 % of parents reported that their child had experienced none of these challenges, which was similar to the percentage in Estonia and the United States.
Children with learning difficulties had significantly lower emotion identification and emotion attribution outcomes, and were rated by their educators as having lower prosocial behaviour and trust, than children without learning difficulties, after controlling for socio-economic status. Children with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties had lower emotion identification, prosocial behaviour and trust, as well as more disruptive behaviour, after controlling for socio-economic status.
When these challenges were analysed together, social, emotional or behavioural difficulties were more highly associated with poorer social-emotional learning outcomes than low birth weight or premature birth, or learning difficulties – except for emotion identification and emotion attribution, where learning difficulties were more highly associated with poorer outcomes (Figure 5.7). Disruptive behaviour was particularly associated with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. These associations were significant after controlling for socio-economic status.
Score-point differences between children who have and have not experienced an early difficulty, after accounting for the effects of other early difficulties, and before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
Children who had experienced low birth weight or premature birth had similar social-emotional skills to other children regardless of whether birth weight or premature birth was analysed alone, together with other difficulties or before or after accounting for socio-economic background.
Children from advantaged socio-economic backgrounds in England have higher social-emotional learning outcomes
Figure 5.8 shows the difference in social-emotional learning outcomes between children from the top and bottom quartiles of the national socio-economic status (SES) index. IELS defines children from an advantaged socio-economic background as those located in the top quartile of socio-economic status. Children from a disadvantaged socio-economic background are defined as those located in the bottom quartile. The results show that children from advantaged socio-economic backgrounds had significantly higher social-emotional learning outcomes than children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds in both the direct and indirect assessments. The differences in social-emotional outcomes of children in England were relatively similar to those of children in the United States but larger than in Estonia.
The strength of the relationship varied depending on the social-emotional outcome. Emotion attribution showed the greatest difference, and trust the smallest.
Note: The mean differences between bottom and top quartile of socio-economic are statistically significant.
Children whose parents primarily speak a language other than English at home have similar social-emotional outcomes as children whose parents primarily speak English
Around 16 % of children in England for whom language information was available lived in homes where at least one parent (or the single parent) mainly spoke a language other than English. This was 4 percentage points lower than in the United States and 10 percentage points higher than the share of parents reported as not speaking the assessment languages of Estonian and Russian at home in Estonia. The results showed no significant differences among children based on home language in England, after controlling for socio-economic status.
Children with an immigrant background in England have similar social-emotional skills to other children, after controlling for socio-economic status and home language
In England, 18 % of children for whom relevant information was available had an immigrant background.2 This was four times higher than children in Estonia and similar to children in the United States. The results from educator assessments showed statistically significant differences in children’s prosocial behaviour and trust based on immigrant background, after controlling for socio-economic status. However, these differences were not significant after also controlling for home language.
Maternal education is positively associated with social-emotional learning after accounting for household income
In England, 40 % of the mothers for whom information was available had completed tertiary education (i.e. bachelor’s degree or master’s degree, professional degree or doctorate), which is about 13 percentage points lower than in Estonia and similar to the United States. The social-emotional scores of children whose mothers had completed tertiary education were not significantly different than those of mothers who had not after accounting for household income. However, children of mothers who had completed up to lower secondary education had significantly lower emotion identification, prosocial behaviour, and trust compared to the children of mothers with a higher level of education, after accounting household income.
Children in single-parent households in England have similar social-emotional outcomes as children in two-parent households
In England, 15 % of children for whom information was available lived in single-parent households, which was around 3 percentage points more than in Estonia and similar to the United States. The direct and indirect assessments showed that children in two-parent households scored significantly higher than children in single-parent households, although these differences disappeared after controlling for socio-economic status.
Children with two siblings are less disruptive than children with one or no sibling, but children with no siblings have higher emotion identification than children with one or more siblings
In England, 16 % of children participating in IELS had no siblings, 50 % had one sibling, 22 % had two, 7 % had three, 3 % had four and around 2 % had more than four. Across participating countries, most children had one sibling. On average, 12 % of children in England had three or more siblings, compared to 8 % in Estonia and 20 % in the United States.
Educator reports indicated that children with two siblings were less disruptive than children with one or no siblings (Figure 5.9). In the direct assessment, children with no siblings had higher emotion identification than children with one or more siblings. These differences remained significant after controlling for socio-economic background.
After accounting for socio-economic status
The number of children’s books in the home is positively related to children’s emotion identification and prosocial behaviour
In England, 9 % of children for whom information was available lived in households with access to 10 children’s books or fewer, 12 % in homes with access to 11-25 books, 22 % in homes with access to 26-50 books, 28 % in homes with access to 51-100 books and 29 % in homes with access to more than 100 children’s books. Children in England were, on average, slightly more likely to have more children’s books at home than children in the United States, and significantly more likely than children in Estonia (only 10 % of children in Estonia had more than 100 books). Having access to more than 100 children’s books at home compared to having under 26 had a positive association with children’s emotion identification, after controlling for socio-economic status. Differences were also found between the number of books at home and the indirect assessment. Educators reported significantly higher prosocial behaviour for children from homes with access to more than 100 books than for children from homes with between 26 and 50 books, after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 5.10). The positive association between having access to a higher number of books at home and social-emotional scores did not significantly differ by gender, after accounting for socio-economic status.
After accounting for socio-economic status
Children who do educational activities on a digital device once or twice a week have higher emotion identification skills than children who do not do such activities
In England, 12 % of children never did educational activities on a digital device (e.g. computer, laptop or smartphone) with their parents, 29 % did so less than one day a week, 30 % did so one or two days a week, 19 % did so between three and four days a week and 9 % did so between five and seven days a week. The percentage of children in England who did educational activities with their parents on a digital device was lower than in the United States (who mostly did it between one or two days) and higher than in Estonia (who mostly did it less than once a week). Children who did educational activities with their parents on a digital device once or twice a week had better emotion identification skills than children who never did these activities (Figure 5.11). This result remained significant after controlling for socio-economic status.
Parents were as likely to undertake educational activities on a digital device with girls as with boys. In addition, there were no gender differences in the social-emotional learning outcomes from undertaking these activities, after accounting socio-economic status.
Children who regularly role-play with their parents have higher emotion attribution scores than children who never role-play with their parents
In England, 4 % of parents participating in IELS reported never role-playing3 with their children, 15 % did so less than one day a week, 32 % did so one or two days a week, 28 % did so between three and four days a week and 21 % did so between five and seven days a week. Some 50 % of parents in England role-played with their child between three and seven days a week, compared to 30 % in Estonia and 60 % in the United States.
Children who role-played with their parents one or two days a week had better emotion attribution scores than children who never did so (Figure 5.12). This result remained significant after controlling for socio-economic status. The positive association with role-playing with parents did not significantly differ by the child’s gender after accounting for socio-economic status.
After accounting for socio-economic status
After accounting for socio-economic status
Children whose parents regularly have back-and-forth conversations with them about how they feel are more emphatic and have stronger prosocial behaviour
In England, fewer than 1 % of parents reported that they never had back-and-forth conversations with their children about how they feel, 3 % did so less than one day a week, 14 % did so one or two days a week, 29 % did so three or four days a week, and 53 % did so between five and seven days a week. These percentages were similar in the United States and Estonia.
The data show that children whose parents regularly had back-and-forth conversations with them about how they feel had higher emotion identification and emotion attribution scores than those who did so less frequently, after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 5.13). Educators reported higher prosocial skills among those children whose parents had back-and-forth conversations with them between five and seven days a week compared to those who did so less frequently.
After accounting for socio-economic status
Children whose parents read to them between five and seven days a week have better emotion identification and prosocial behaviour
In England, 4 % of parents for whom information is available read from a book to their child less than once a week, 12 % did so one or two days a week, 25 % did so three or four days a week, and 59 % did so between five and seven days a week. The percentage of parents who read from a book to their child between five and seven days a week was around 17 percentage points lower in the United States and 22 percentage points lower in Estonia.
Children whose parents read to them between five and seven days a week had higher emotion identification and prosocial behaviour than those whose parents read to them only one or two days a week (Figure 5.14). This result remained significant after controlling for socio-economic background.
Children who regularly attend special activities outside of the home are more empathetic and have stronger prosocial behaviour and trust, as well as less disruptive behaviour, than those who go once a week or less
In England, 20 % of parents never took their child to special activities4 outside of the home, 15 % did so less than once a week, 47 % did so one or two days a week, 16 % did so three or four days a week, and around 2 % did so between five and seven days a week. The percentage of parents who took their child to activities outside of the home between once and twice a week was around 12 percentage points lower in the United States and around 8 percentage points lower in Estonia. Approximately 84 % of parents from the top SES quartile in England took their child to special activities outside of the home at least once a week, compared to 42 % of parents from the bottom SES quartile.
Children who regularly attended special activities outside of the home one or two days a week had significantly higher emotion identification, emotion attribution and prosocial behaviour scores than those who never did, higher than those who did so less than one day a week in trust, and lower than those who did so between 5-7 days a week in non-disruptive behaviour. (Figure 5.15). While children who attended special activities outside of the home between five and seven days a week had lower emotion attribution scores than those who did so one or two days a week, their educators considered them less disruptive. Parents were as likely to undertake these activities with girls and boys, and the positive association of going to special activities did not significantly differ by gender after accounting for socio-economic status.
After accounting for socio-economic status
After accounting for socio-economic status
Children whose parents are active in their child’s school have better social-emotional learning outcomes
In IELS, educators reported the extent to which parents were involved in their children’s school. In England, 69 % of parents had a moderate to strong involvement in activities taking place in their child’s school, which was higher than in the United States (65 %), but lower than in Estonia (80 %). Examples of activities include fetes, concerts/plays, parent’s evenings, and parental workshops. Figure 5.16 shows the difference in social-emotional learning outcomes between children whose parents had a moderate or strong involvement in the school and those whose parents did not.
Children whose parents had a moderate or strong involvement had better emotion identification, prosocial behaviour and trust, as well as less disruptive behaviour, even after accounting for socio-economic status. The positive relation with parental involvement in the school did not significantly differ by gender, after accounting for socio-economic status. However, unlike Estonia and the United States, educators in England reported the parents of girls as having higher levels of involvement in the school than the parents of boys.
Score-point differences between children whose parents are moderately or strongly involved in activities at school and those whose parents are slightly or not involved, according to their teachers, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Notes: All differences are statistically significant.
Children who use digital devices once a month have higher trust than those who use them once a week or every day
In England, 6 % of children for whom information was available never or hardly ever used a desktop or laptop computer, tablet device or smartphone, 9 % used them at least once a month, 46 % used them at least once a week, and 39 % used them every day. The percentage of children who used digital devices every day was similar to Estonia, but around 10 percentage points lower than in the United States.
Children who used digital devices at least once a month in England had higher trust according to their educators than those who used them once a week or every day (Figure 5.17). This result remained significant after controlling for socio-economic background. The association of using digital devices did not significantly differ by gender, after accounting for socio-economic status.
ECEC attendance in England is associated with children’s trust and non-disruptive behaviour
Overall, IELS data show that children who first attended ECEC when they were under one had higher trust at age five than those who started at age three. However, the association with ECEC attendance significantly differed by gender, after accounting for socio-economic background. Boys who first attended ECEC when they were four years old had no significantly different levels of trust at age five than those who first attended when they were under one. On the other hand, girls who first attended ECEC when they were under one had higher trust at age five than those who first attended when they were three or four (Figure 5.18).
After accounting for socio-economic status
After accounting for socio-economic status
In IELS, an average of approximately 71 % of children first attended ECEC before the age of three and 29 % first attended at age three or above. Children who first attended ECEC at age three or above were, on average, half a month older at the assessment date. The data show that children who first attended ECEC at age three or above were less disruptive at age five than those who first attended before the age of three, after controlling for socio-economic background and children’s age (Figure 5.19).
In England, 87 % of children who first attended an ISCED5 setting at age four did so for more than 20 hours a week, and 13 % did so for less than 20. Some 56 % of children attended for more than 20 hours a week at age three, 46 % at age two, 51 % at age one and 52 % at under one year old. However, there were no clear relationships between ECEC intensity (i.e. whether the child attended for more or less than 20 hours) and children’s social-emotional scores.
After accounting for socio-economic status
Social-emotional skills are significant predictors of students’ academic performance in areas such as mathematics and reading, after accounting for socio-economic status (Suárez-Álvarez, Fernández-Alonso and Muñiz, 2014[32]; Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2008[33]). Although previous research has typically assessed students attending primary, secondary and higher education, recent evidence from neuroscience supports the theory that emotion and cognition are also interrelated during early infancy development (Bush, Luu and Posner, 2000[2]; Davidson et al., 2002[3]; Posner and Rothbart, 2000[4]).
Figure 5.20 shows the percentage of variation in emergent literacy and numeracy scores explained by social-emotional scores, after accounting for socio-economic status. The first bar presents the percentage of variation in numeracy explained by educators’ indirect assessments of children’s social-emotional skills (prosocial behaviour, trust and non-disruptive behaviour), after accounting for socio-economic background. The second bar shows the association with the direct assessment of children’s social-emotional skills (emotion identification and emotion attribution). The third bar shows the combined effect of the direct and the indirect assessments. While the domains in the second bar were measured using the same assessment method – tablet-based stories and games – the first bar used educator assessments as an independent method. Therefore, the percentages in the first and third bars serve as a proxy of the minimum and maximum variation associated with social-emotional skills, regardless of the assessment method. The data show that social-emotional scores were predictive of emergent literacy and numeracy scores. Children’s social-emotional scores, together with socio-economic status, explained between 27 % and 46 % of the variation in emergent literacy scores in England. After accounting for socio-economic status, emergent social-emotional skills explained between 13 % and 33 % of emergent literacy scores.
Figure 5.21 shows the percentage of variation in emergent inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory scores (self-regulation skills) explained by social-emotional scores, after accounting for socio-economic status. As in Figure 5.20, the bars represent the different measures of social-emotional skills based on educator reports, direct assessments or the combined effect of both. Children’s social-emotional scores, together with socio-economic status, explained between 15 % and 26 % of the variation in working memory scores in England. Importantly, emergent social-emotional skills explained between 7 % and 18 % of emergent working memory scores, after accounting for socio-economic status. Despite sharing the same assessment method, the association between inhibition and empathy skills is negligible. Importantly, educators also support the relation between emotion and cognition in the indirect assessment of social-emotional skills through an independent method. Indeed, educators’ indirect assessment still explains a significant amount of variation in self-regulation scores after accounting for socio-economic status.
In short, children with higher prosocial behaviour, trust and non-disruptive behaviour, as rated by their educators, had significantly higher emergent literacy, numeracy, working memory, and mental flexibility scores. At the same time, the direct assessment showed that children who were more empathetic also had significantly higher scores in those domains.
Notes: SEL = social-emotional skills.
The green bar shows the percentage of variation in each IELS outcome explained by socio-economic status. The orange bars show the additional variance explained when social-emotional skills (indirectly assessed, directly assessed or combined direct and indirect) are introduced to a regression model already containing socio-economic status.
Notes: SEL = social-emotional skills.
The green bar shows the percentage of variation in each IELS outcome explained by socio-economic status. The orange bars show the additional variance explained when social-emotional skills (indirectly assessed, directly assessed or combined direct and indirect) are introduced to a regression model already containing socio-economic status.
The average five-year-old in England is less able to identify other’s emotions than their counterparts in Estonia, although they are considered less disruptive by their educators
The average five-year-old in England was less able to identify the feelings of characters than children in Estonia, and as able as children in the United States. Children’s ability to recognise emotions is a precursor for their ability to feel empathy towards others. For emotion attribution, where the score reflects children’s own emotions, children in England scored at a similar level to children in the United States and Estonia.
According to educators, children in England had significantly lower prosocial behaviour than children in Estonia, and similar levels to children in the United States. However, educators in England rated children significantly less disruptive than educators in Estonia, and similar to educators in the United States. Educators in the three participating countries rated children as having similar levels of trust.
Parents and educators in England rated children’s emotional control similarly (e.g. whether the child waits patiently for something he or she wants). However, parents were more likely to rate children’s empathy skills (e.g. whether the child is considerate, helpful, caring) as more developed. This might indicate differences between children’s empathy development in an early childhood education and care (ECEC) setting and at home, as well as the different expectations of parents and educators. Children’s emotional control, however, is more consistent across contexts. Similar findings are observed in Estonia and the United States.
Children’s social-emotional skills are related to their emergent literacy and numeracy and self-regulation scores
Children’s social-emotional scores through direct and indirect assessments were excellent predictors of scores in other aspects of the assessment, even after accounting for socio-economic status. In England, children’s social-emotional scores accounted for between 13 % and 33 % of their emergent literacy scores (compared to between 5 % and 27 % in Estonia and between 13 % and 33 % in the United States), between 12 % and 28 % of their numeracy scores (compared to between 6 % and 26 % in Estonia and between 7 % and 22 % in the United States), and between 7 % and 18 % of their working memory scores (compared to between 4 % and 11 % in Estonia and between 5 % and 22 % in the United States), after accounting for socio-economic status.
The development of early skills are interrelated. Cognitive skills are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to foster early social-emotional learning. For example, children need a minimum level of literacy skills to be able to adequately navigate socially; have rich interactions with peers, friends, and parents; and, ultimately, to open the door to higher levels of social-emotional learning. However, having high levels of literacy does not always guarantee high social-emotional skills, and vice-versa.
Relationships between early social-emotional skills and socio-economic background were stronger in England than in Estonia, and similar to the United States
Socio-economic background had a significant relationship with children’s social-emotional development in England across all social-emotional skills measured in IELS. Furthermore, relationships between emotion attribution, prosocial behaviour and socio-economic background were significantly stronger than in Estonia, but similar to the United States.
Socio-economic background was associated with the frequency with which children engaged in different activities. Parents from a higher socio-economic background were more likely to read to their child from a book, take their child to special activities outside of the home, have frequent back-and-forth conversations with their child, have access to a higher number of children’s books and do role-play with their child than parents from a lower socio-economic background. These home learning activities are associated with higher scores in social-emotional skills. As in Estonia and the United States, educators in England reported increased parental involvement in the child’s school by parents from higher socio-economic backgrounds.
Girls, especially those from lower socio-economic households, have higher social-emotional outcomes
On average, girls had higher scores across all social-emotional skills measured in IELS. Educators reported greater gender differences than found in the direct assessment. The differences between boys and girls were statistically significant for both direct and indirect assessments. Furthermore, the gender gap in social-emotional skills, especially trust, was larger among children from the bottom quartile of socio-economic background than among children from the top quartile.
Parents of boys in England were as likely to read to their child from a book, take them to special activities outside of the home, or have back-and-forth conversations with them as parents of girls. However, girls in England had more books at home and engaged in role-play more often with their parents than boys. These differences for role-play activities were similar in Estonia and the United States, but boys and girls in the other two countries had a similar numbers of books. Unlike Estonia and the United States, educators in England reported higher levels of parent involvement in the school by parents of girls than parents of boys.
ECEC attendance in England is associated with children’s trust and non-disruptive behaviour
IELS data show that girls who first attended ECEC when they were under one had higher trust at age five than those who first attended when they were three or four years old. IELS data also show that children who first attended ECEC at age three or above were less disruptive at age five than those who attended before three years old. However, there were no clear relationships between ECEC intensity (i.e. whether the child attended for more or less than 20 hours) and children’s social-emotional scores.
Home and family learning environments have a positive relationship with children’s social-emotional scores
After accounting for socio-economic background, home and family learning environments were powerful predictors of children’s social-emotional scores. The following factors were positively related to children’s social-emotional scores in England: mother’s education, siblings, a high number of children’s books at home, moderate use of electronic devices, regular role-playing with their parents, parents who regularly read to their child, going regularly to special activities outside of the home, having regular back-and-forth conversations with their parents about how they feel, and parental involvement in ECEC.
Children who have experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties before the age of five have lower social-emotional skills at age five
Parents in IELS provided information on whether their child had a low birth weight or premature birth, learning difficulties, or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. IELS data show that social, emotional or behavioural difficulties were more highly associated with lower social-emotional learning outcomes than low birth weight/premature birth or learning difficulties, except for emotion identification and emotion attribution, where learning difficulties were more highly associated. Disruptive behaviour was particularly associated with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, as might be expected. Children with a low birth weight or premature birth had similar social-emotional skills as other children, regardless of whether analysed alone or with other difficulties, and before and after accounting for socio-economic background.
References
[22] Abrahams, L. et al. (2019), “Social-Emotional Skill Assessment in Children and Adolescents: Advances and Challenges in Personality, Clinical, and Educational Contexts”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 31/4, pp. 460-473, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000591.
[31] Baldwin, D. and L. Moses (1996), “The Ontogeny of Social Information Gathering”, Child Development, Vol. 67/5, p. 1915, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131601.
[25] Baumrind, D. (1968), Manual for the Preschool Behavior Q-Sort, University of California. Institute of Human Development.
[30] Bowlby, J. (1969), Attachment and Loss: Volume I Attachment, https://www.abebe.org.br/files/John-Bowlby-Attachment-Second-Edition-Attachment-and-Loss-Series-Vol-1-1983.pdf (accessed on 31 July 2019).
[18] Buchanan, A., E. Flouri and J. Brinke (2002), Emotional and behavioural problems in childhood and distress in adult life: risk and protective factors, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01048.x (accessed on 31 July 2019).
[2] Bush, G., P. Luu and M. Posner (2000), “Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 4/6, pp. 215-222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01483-2.
[9] Caprara, G. et al. (2000), “Prosocial Foundations of Children’s Academic Achievement”, Psychological Science, Vol. 11/4, pp. 302-306, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00260.
[19] CASEL (2015), 2015 CASEL Guide: Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs-Middle and High School Edition.
[33] Chamorro-Premuzic, T. and A. Furnham (2008), “Personality, intelligence and approaches to learning as predictors of academic performance”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 44/7, pp. 1596-1603, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.003.
[13] Ciarrochi, J., P. Heaven and S. Supavadeeprasit (2008), “The link between emotion identification skills and socio-emotional functioning in early adolescence: A 1-year longitudinal study”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 31/5, pp. 565-582, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.10.004.
[15] Daniel, E. et al. (2014), “Developmental relations between sympathy, moral emotion attributions, moral reasoning, and social justice values from childhood to early adolescence”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 37/7, pp. 1201-1214, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.08.009.
[3] Davidson, R. et al. (2002), “Neural and behavioral substrates of mood and mood regulation.”, Biological psychiatry, Vol. 52/6, pp. 478-502, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361665 (accessed on 30 July 2019).
[21] De Fruyt, F. and B. Wille (2015), “Employability in the 21st Century: Complex (Interactive) Problem Solving and Other Essential Skills”, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.33.
[10] Duncan, G. et al. (2007), “School Readiness and Later Achievement”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 43/6, pp. 1428-1446, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ [0012-1649.43.6.1428].supp.
[16] Flèche, S., W. Lekfuangfu and A. Clark (2019), “The long-lasting effects of family and childhood on adult wellbeing: Evidence from British cohort data”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JEBO.2018.09.018.
[14] Fontaine, N. et al. (2011), “Predictors and outcomes of joint trajectories of callous–unemotional traits and conduct problems in childhood.”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 120/3, pp. 730-742, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022620.
[5] Garber, J. and K. Dodge (1991), The Development of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation, Cambridge University Press.
[12] Garner, P. and B. Waajid (2008), “The associations of emotion knowledge and teacher-child relationships to preschool children’s school-related developmental competence”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 29/2, pp. 89-100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.12.001.
[29] Hinnant, J. and M. O’Brien (2007), “Cognitive and Emotional Control and Perspective Taking and Their Relations to Empathy in 5-Year-Old Children”, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol. 168/3, pp. 301-322, http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.168.3.301-322.
[24] Hogan, A., K. Scott and C. Bauer (1992), “The Adaptive Social Behavior Inventory (Asbi): A New Assessment of Social Competence in High-Risk Three-Year-Olds”, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 10/3, pp. 230-239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073428299201000303.
[23] Kankaraš, M. and J. Suarez-Alvarez (2019), “Assessment framework of the OECD Study on Social and Emotional Skills”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 207, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5007adef-en.
[7] Leerkes, E. et al. (2008), “Emotion and cognition processes in preschool children”, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 54/1, pp. 102-124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2008.0009.
[34] Posner, M. and M. Rothbart (2000), “Developing mechanisms of self-regulation”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 12/3, pp. 427-41, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579400003096 (accessed on 30 July 2019).
[11] Rhoades, B. et al. (2011), “Examining the link between preschool social-emotional competence and first grade academic achievement: The role of attention skills”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 26/2, pp. 182-191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.07.003.
[26] Roberts, W., J. Strayer and S. Denham (2014), “Empathy, anger, guilt: Emotions and prosocial behaviour.”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, Vol. 46/4, pp. 465-474, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035057.
[17] Rutter, M., J. Kim-Cohen and B. Maughan (2006), “Continuities and discontinuities in psychopathology between childhood and adult life”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 47/3-4, pp. 276-295, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01614.x.
[8] Schoon, I. et al. (2015), The Impact of Early Life Skills on Later Outcomes, OECD Directorate for Education and Skills, Education Policy Committee, http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10051902/1/Schoon_2015%20The%20Impact%20of%20Early%20Life%20Skills%20on%20Later%20Outcomes_%20Sept%20fin2015.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2019).
[6] Schroder, H. et al. (2017), “Neural evidence for enhanced attention to mistakes among school-aged children with a growth mindset”, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 24, pp. 42-50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.DCN.2017.01.004.
[28] Strayer, J. (1993), “Children’s Concordant Emotions and Cognitions in Response to Observed Emotions”, Child Development, Vol. 64/1, pp. 188-201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02903.x.
[27] Strayer, J. (1987), “Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy.”, in Empathy and its development., Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
[32] Suárez-Álvarez, J., R. Fernández-Alonso and J. Muñiz (2014), “Self-concept, motivation, expectations, and socioeconomic level as predictors of academic performance in mathematics”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 30, pp. 118-123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2013.10.019.
[1] Thompson, R. (2001), “Development in the First Years of Life”, The Future of Children, Vol. 11/1, p. 33, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1602807.
[20] Weissberg, R. et al. (2015), “Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future”, Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice, pp. 3-19, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
← 1. The low number of children with special educational needs did not allow for a robust analysis by gender.
← 2. IELS defines immigrant background as having both parents/carers born in a country or economy other than where they participated in IELS.
← 3. Role-play is defined as imaginative or pretend play such as playing the role of a chef or a shopkeeper.
← 4. Special activities are defined as a special or paid activity outside of the home such as sports clubs, dance, swimming lessons or language lessons.
← 5. According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), ISCED 0 programmes are pre-primary programmes situated in institutional settings 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).