Early Childhood Experiences and Child Development in Brant

Lessons Learned From the 2012 Early Development Instrument and

Kindergarten Parents Survey

Authors

Anca Gaston, PhD

Data Analysis Co-ordinator

Alexey Babayan, PhD

Acting Manager, Program Planning and Evaluation

Sarah A. Edwards, PhD(c)

Manager, Program Planning and Evaluation

Jo Ann Tober, PhD

Executive Director

Contact Information. For more information about this report, please contact Anca Gaston, Data

Analysis Co-ordinator at the Brant County Health Unit by calling (519) 753-4937 ext. 330 or e-

mailing anca.gaston@bchu.org

Acknowledgements (see edits to paper version)

Suggested citation: Gaston, A., Babayan, A., Edwards, S. A., Tober, J. Early Childhood Experiences

and Child Development in Brant: Lessons Learned From the 2012 Early Development Instrument

and Kindergarten Parents Survey. Brant, ON: Brant County Health Unit, January 2015.

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

Why is Early Child Development Important? .................................................................................. 7

Why is it important to monitor early child development? .............................................................. 7

Purpose of this report ........................................................................................................................ 8

The Data ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Child Development and Vulnerability in Brant .................................................................................. 10

Family Socio-Demographic characteristics ......................................................................................... 11

Education .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Single Parents ................................................................................................................................... 12

Family income .................................................................................................................................. 13

Parental Leave .................................................................................................................................. 14

Mobility ............................................................................................................................................. 15

Smoking in the home ....................................................................................................................... 16

Neighbourhood safety ...................................................................................................................... 17

Child Health Status and Access to Health Care .................................................................................. 19

Access to a Health Care Provider ..................................................................................................... 19

Child Health Status .......................................................................................................................... 19

Use of Child Services and Programs ................................................................................................... 20

Child Care ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Program use ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Special Services ................................................................................................................................. 21

Parent Engagement ............................................................................................................................. 22

Doing Activities with Child ............................................................................................................. 22

Attending Parenting Classes, Workshops, or Programs ................................................................ 22

Parenting challenges ....................................................................................................................... 22

Parental School Involvement .......................................................................................................... 24

Barriers to Parental Involvement .................................................................................................... 25

Physical activity and active transportation ........................................................................................ 26

Participation in Sports or Physical Activity .................................................................................... 26

Family physical activity ................................................................................................................... 27

Child’s Mode of Transportation to School ..................................................................................... 28

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 30

Executive Summary

Early childhood is a very sensitive period in human development. During this time, interactions between experiences, environment, and genes affect all aspects of children’s development, especially their emotions, attention span, self-control, and ability to cope with stress. This report presents findings from a study that examined the relationship between children’s developmental levels and their individual, family and neighborhood characteristics. The target population of the study was Brant children who attended senior kindergarten during the 2011-2012 school year.

Two data sources were used for the study: the Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the Kindergarten Parents Survey (KPS). The EDI and KPS are conducted periodically by the Ministry of Education to measure child development and experiences in the first 4-5 years of life. The EDI assesses child development in five key areas: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge. Children who score in the bottom 10th percentile on one or more of these scales are considered ‘vulnerable,’ meaning that they are at risk of later academic or developmental challenges. The KPS collects information on family demographics, child pre-kindergarten and kindergarten experiences, parenting behaviors and neighborhood characteristics. These KPS variables were included in the analysis, which focused on students identified as vulnerable according to their EDI score. Key findings of the study include: Health. Most families (90.1%) reported their children having very good or excellent health. The

vast majority of parents (97.3%) have access to a family doctor.

Vulnerability. Overall, 28.4% of children in Brant were vulnerable on one or more EDI domains.

Greater vulnerability was associated with:

Living in one of several higher risk neighbourhoods or a neighbourhood which parents

perceived as ‘less safe’

Lower socioeconomic status of the family (lower parental education and income)

Being a single parent

Having moved two or more times in the past 5 years

Having adults who smoke in the home

Limited parent involvement in their child’s school

Use of child services and programs

Child care use varied between families, and shifted from parental care to paid care as

children grew older

Except for public libraries, use of child programs in general is low. 44.4% of parents

reported using the public library while all other program use was reported by less than

one quarter of parents.

Parent Engagement

Most parents engaged in regular activities with their child. The most common activities

were talking about child’s day (86.7%) and telling or reading the child a story (59.9%).

Common parenting challenges were finding family time and encouraging healthy eating

(both 31.7%).

Physical activity

Family-based physical activities and active transportation to school were reported by

fewer than 40% of parents and varied greatly among neighbourhoods.

Most children reportedly participate in sports activities at least once a week with a coach

(61%) and without a coach (73%). The latter group was found to be less vulnerable on the

EDI domains.

This is the first ever study that examined the relationship between children’s individual, family

and neighborhood characteristics and their physical, social, emotional, and cognitive

development in Brant. The results provide strong evidence that experience and developmental

outcomes are inextricably interwoven. Our findings may help increase awareness about the

importance of early childhood experiences, inform resource allocation, and guide the

development of school, community, public health, and Early Years programs to minimize the

risks associated with childhood adversity.

Introduction

Why is Early Child Development Important?

Early childhood is a very sensitive period in human development. During this time, a child’s

experiences, environment, and genes all interact to shape the developing brain. This affects all

aspects of a child’s development, especially their emotions, attention span, self-control, and

ability to cope with stress.

Research has now demonstrated that the majority of brain development occurs during the first 3

years of life, before a child even sets foot in a regular classroom (4-5 years of age. The human

brain is very sensitive to stimulation during this period, which is referred to as a ‘sensitive’ or

‘critical’ period. Figure 1 illustrates that the brain pathways related to vision and hearing are

particularly sensitive during the first few months to one year of life. This means that if a child is

deprived of visual and auditory stimulation (e.g., by spending long periods of time in isolation),

he or she will never develop normal vision and hearing ability. The same is true for developing

emotional and social competencies.

Figure 1. Sensitive Periods in Early Brain Development

Why is it important to monitor early child development?

It is important to monitor early child development in order to: -Examine and understand trends in developmental patterns across time -Adjust school programs to meet current demands of incoming students -Identify neighbourhood/community strengths and vulnerabilities -Inform decisions about where to locate child and family support programs or where financial resources should be allocated

Five EDI domains: • Physical Health and Well-Being

• Social Competence

• Emotional Maturity

• Language and Cognitive Development

• Communication Skills and General

knowledge

KPS Sections • Child health and development • Child care • Pre-kindergarten & Kindergarten • Family characteristics and parenting behaviours • Neighbourhood • Background information

Purpose

How do early childhood experiences impact

development?”

-Draw comparisons with other jurisdictions or the province as a whole -Advocate for families and children

Purpose of this report

This report examines the link between early childhood experiences and child development in Brant. We will strive to answer the question “How do early childhood experiences impact development?” by examining the relationship between children’s developmental levels and their individual, family and neighborhood factors.

The Data

Two surveys were used to address the key research question: the Early Development Instrument (EDI) and the Kindergarten Parents Survey (KPS). These surveys are conducted periodically by the Ministry of Education to measure child development and experiences in the first 4-5 years of life.

Early Development Instrument

The EDI is a 104-question survey completed for each senior kindergarten student by their teacher. It measures developmental levels in five domains. The EDI is a population-based measure, meaning that it is intended as a tool to look at groups of children rather than individual children. The EDI is strongly linked with children’s future academic success. The most recent EDI measurement took place in March 2012 and data was obtained for 1259 eligible students.

Kindergarten Parents Survey

The KPS is a 43-question survey for parents. It is intended as a companion document to the EDI and is meant to be analyzed together with the EDI in order to help explain the variability between EDI scores. The KPS was implemented in Brant for the first time in May 2012. Questionnaires were sent home by kindergarten teachers with each child. A reminder letter was sent a week later and parents were asked to return the completed questionnaire to school with their child.

Table 1 summarizes the number of EDI records and KPS questionnaires included in the

analysis.

Table 1: Datasets used in analysis

Number (percent)

Total EDI records in original dataset 1372

Eligible EDI records (i.e., met bullet points 1-5 above) 1259

Completed KPS questionnaires returned 883 (70.1% response rate)

Total number of KPS participants included in analysis 883

The response rate for the KPS was 70.1% (883 questionnaires were returned), which is higher than

the provincial average of approximately 50%. When examined by neighbourhood, the response

rate ranged from 51.1% in Terrace Hill to 80.5% in Banbury. The lowest response rates (under

60%) were observed in the following four neighbourhoods: Terrace Hill, Homedale-William,

Eagle Place, Henderson. The majority of surveys were completed by mothers (92.3%); 92.6% of

families spoke English at home; and 86.5% of families have always lived in Canada (i.e., non-

immigrants).

Analysis

This analysis included all children who:

1. Were in senior kindergarten during February-March, 2012

2. Were not considered ‘special needs’ (i.e., already identified by the school as needing

assistance)

3. Had been in the present classroom for a minimum of one month

4. Had complete data for at least 4 of the 5 EDI domains

5. Had a complete and valid postal code

and…

6. Had returned their KPS questionnaire

EDI scores were calculated to determine child developmental level across five domains. Each EDI

domain is scored from 0-10, with 10 representing the most advanced level of development.

Children who fall in the bottom 10th percentile of scores are considered to be ‘vulnerable (see

Figure 2).’ This means that they are more likely to be limited in their development in the

identified domain compared to a child who scores above the cut-point. It also means that they

may have a higher risk for developmental difficulties and experiencing social, emotional,

behavioural and/or academic problems currently or later on. The analysis focused on students

identified as vulnerable according to their EDI score.

Figure 2: EDI Score distribution and vulnerability

To determine the relationship between early experiences and child development, KPS variables

measuring child health, early child care, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten experiences,

parenting behaviors, neighbourhood characteristics, and family demographics were included in

the analysis.

Data analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS software (v. 21.0). Frequencies were used to

examine the distribution of scores across neighbourhoods or response categories. Pearson Chi-

square procedures were used to examine the relationship between KPS variables and vulnerability

on the EDI. The significance level was set at p < .05. For privacy reasons, data was suppressed in

analyses where there were fewer than 10 children per category.

Results

Child Development and Vulnerability in

Brant Overall, 28.4% of children in Brant were vulnerable on one or more domains. Figure 3 illustrates that vulnerability varied greatly among neighbourhoods. For example, in East South Dumfries and Banbury, 5.9% of students were vulnerable in one or more domains (shown in green) while in Homedale-William, this figure was 55.9% (shown in red). The percent vulnerable in Homedale-William was significantly higher than the percent vulnerable in all other neighbourhoods, including Core (where 43.4% were vulnerable; see Figure 3). Figure: 3: Percent of children vulnerable in one or more domains in Brant by neighbourhood

vulnerable

Family Socio-Demographic characteristics

Education

The percent of parents with no post-secondary education (i.e., no college or university degree)

ranged from 6.2% in E.S. Dumfries to 51.6% in Homedale-William as illustrated in Figure 4. The

highest percentage of parents with a high school education or less was reported in Core, Eagle

Place, Homedale-Williams, and Terrace Hill, all shown in red on the map. Figure 5 illustrates that

as the educational level of parents increases, the percent of children vulnerable on one or more

domains decreases. In particular, children whose parents had at least an undergraduate degree

were less likely to be vulnerable on one or more domains compared to children whose parents

had a college/trade education or less. Children whose parents had a high school diploma were

more likely to be vulnerable compared to children whose parents had an undergraduate or

graduate degree.

Figure 4: Percent of parents with no post-secondary education by neighbourhood, parent-

reported

Figure 5: Parental education and vulnerability

Single Parents

The percent of single parents ranged from 5.2% in Henderson to 31.7% in Eagle Place as illustrated in Figure 6. Neighbourhoods shown in green had a lower percentage of single parents compared to neighbourhoods shown in red. Data analysis revealed that children who had two parents at home were less likely to be vulnerable on one or more EDI domains compared to children with two parents sharing custody or who had a single parent (see Figuire 7).

47.9

30.8

29.015.7

10.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Did notcomplete high

school

High school College/tradecertificate

Undergraddegree

Graduate degree

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Parental Education

Figure 6: Percent of single parents within each Brant neighbourhood, parent-reported

Figure 7: Family situation and vulnerability

Family income

Median family income ranged from $17,001-$30,000 to greater than $100,001 across Brant as

illustrated in Figure 8. Neighbourhoods with lower median incomes are shown in red and those

with higher incomes in green. Figure 9 illustrates the relationship between income and

vulnerability. Several significant differences emerged. Specifically, having a family income below

39.5

26.519.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Single parent Two parents sharingcustody

Two parents at home

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Family Situation

$17,000 was associated with an increased risk of being vulnerable, whereas having a family income

above $100,001 was associated with a decreased risk of being vulnerable.

Figure 8: Median family income across Brant neighbourhoods, parent-reported

Fig. 9 Family income and vulnerability

Parental Leave

Compared to children whose parents did not take parental leave, those whose mothers or both

parents took parental leave were less likely to be vulnerable in one or more EDI domains

51.3

32.829.0

21.5 19.512.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Annual before-tax household income

compared to children without a parent who took leave (see Figure 10). Having a father who took

leave was not associated with a reduction in risk, but it should be noted that these families were

very few.

Figure 10: Parental leave and vulnerability

Mobility

The average number of times a family moved in the previous 5 years varied greatly among

neighbourhoods (see Figure 11). The number of times children had moved was also related to

vulnerability on the EDI as illustrated in Figure 12. Several statistically significant differences

emerged. Children who had moved never or once were less likely to be vulnerable compared to

children who moved two or more times.

Figure 11: Average number of times child moved during the previous 5 years by neighbourhood,

parent-reported

32.4

20.4

29.0

11.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Neither Mother Father Both

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Parental leave after child's birth

Figure 12: Number of times child moved and vulnerability

Smoking in the home

Overall, 5% of parents reported that someone smoked inside the home, although this varied from

0 to 14.3% depending on the neighbourhood. Figure 13 shows that there were four

neighbourhoods in Brant, illustrated using dark green (E.S. Dumfries, Mayfair, Henderson, and

South Brant County), where no parent reported smoking inside the family home. In contrast,

between 7 and 14.3% of families in East Ward, Eagle Place, West Brant, Homedale-William, and

19.8 18.1

29.0

43.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Never Once Twice 3 or more times

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Number of times child moved in the last 5 years

Core (illustrated in red) reported having a smoking adult in the home. Overall, there were

significantly more families with a smoking adult than those with no smokers in the home (42.1%

vs. 22.0%) that had children identified as vulnerable according to their EDI scores .

Figure 13: Percent of families with an adult who smokes in the home by neighbourhood, parent-

reported

Neighbourhood safety

Parents were asked about their perceptions regarding neighbourhood safety.1 As illustrated in

Figure 14, average safety varied depending on the neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods which

were considered least safe by parents include Core, Eagle Place, Homedale-William, Terrace Hill,

East Ward, and Fairview. Figure 15 illustrates the relation between the perceived neighbourhood

safety and vulnerability. When individual safety scores were grouped into quartiles (bottom 25%,

26% to 50%, 51% to 75%, and 76% to 100% of scores), it became evident that children from the

lowest quartile (least safe neighbourhood) were more likely to be vulnerable compared to

children from the third and fourth quartiles (safer neighbourhoods).

1 Safety was assessed using 10 questions. Sample questions include “It is safe to walk alone in my neighbourhood after dark,” “It is safe for children to play outside during the day in my neighbourhood,” “I know my neighbours,” and “You can count on adults in my neighbourhood to watch out that children are safe and don’t get into trouble.” Participants were asked to indicate whether items were “Not true” (0), “Sometimes True” (1), or ‘True” (2) for their neighbourhood. Responses to all 10 items were summed to produce an overall score which could range from 0 (all items scored ‘Not true’) to 20 (all items scored ‘True’).

Figure 14: Perceived neighbourhood safety in Brant, parent-reported

Figure 15: Perceived neighbourhood safety and vulnerability

34.0

25.020.4

14.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Quartile 1 (least safe) Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 (mostsafe)

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Perceived neighbourhood safety

Child Health Status and Access to Health

Care

Access to a Health Care Provider

The overwhelming majority (97.3%) of parents reported that they have a regular family doctor or

health care provider that they can talk to about their child’s health. Children whose parents

reported that they did not have a family doctor were significantly more likely to be vulnerable on

one or more domains compared to children whose parents reported that they had a regular family

doctor (22.7% vs. 45.0%, respectively).

Child Health Status

Parents were asked to indicate whether their child’s health was ‘poor,’ ‘fair,’ ‘good,’ ‘very good,’ or

‘excellent.’ A total of 90.1% of parents reported that their child’s health was either ‘very good’ or

‘excellent,’ 8.5% reported that it was ‘good,’ and 1.4% reported that it was ‘poor’ or ‘fair.’ Figure 16

illustrates the relationship between parent-reported child health status and vulnerability. There

was a significant difference such that children whose parents reported that their health was ‘very

good’ or ‘excellent’ were less likely to be vulnerable on one or more EDI domains compared to

children whose health was considered ‘good.’

Figure 16: Child health status and vulnerability

Note. NR = Data not reportable due to small numbers of children in this category.

NR

44.4

24.419.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poor or fair Good Very good Excellent

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Parent-reported child health status

Use of Child Services and Programs

Child Care

Figure 17 illustrates the type of childcare used by parents across the preschool years. As time from

birth passed, care tended to shift from ‘parent care only’ to centre-based. No neighborhood-level

data is presented due to relatively small sample sizes for individual response categories, which

may lead to the identification of the respondents.

Figure 17: Main type of childcare used by age, parent-reported

Note. Neighbourhood data is not available due to the small sample sizes for individual response categories; the data is suppressed to protect confidentiality.

Program use

Parents were asked to report whether they had used various programs (e.g., children’s clubs,

public library) within the 12 months before their child started kindergarten. The percent of

parents who reported using the programs ranged from 4.6% (cultural or ethnic programs) to

44.4% who reported having visited the public library (see Figure 18). There were no

neighbourhood differences for program use. When the relationship between program use and

vulnerability was explored, a significant association emerged only for public library use. Whether

the use of other programs was associated with vulnerability could not be determined in part due

to relatively small samples of parents reporting on the uptake of those programs. Nevertheless,

children who had visited the library 1-3 times per month were less likely to be vulnerable

compared to children who had not visited the library at all in the 12 months prior to starting

kindergarten (17.5% versus 33.1%, respectively).

Figure 18: Program use, parent-reported

* Significant association with vulnerability

Special Services

Figure 19 illustrates the percent of parents who had sought help from various special services for

their child in the years before their child started kindergarten. The most commonly accessed

service was speech and language, which was reported by 18.1% of parents. Children whose parents

had accessed speech/language services were approximately three times more likely to be

vulnerable on one or more EDI domains compared to children whose parents had not accessed

speech/language programs.

Figure 19: Use of special services, parent-reported

* Significant association with vulnerability

Parent Engagement

Doing Activities with Child

Parents were asked how often they had engaged in 11 different activities within the past 7 days.

The most common activities reported by parents were talking about child’s day (86.7%) and

telling or reading the child a story (59.9%; see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Frequency of parent-child activities, parent-reported

With respect to the relationship between activity frequency and vulnerability, ‘told or read

him/her a story’ and ‘done household chores together’ more often was associated with a reduced

risk of being vulnerable on one or more domains. Although this relationship was statistically

significant, it was a small relationship, indicating that these activities are only mildly related to

vulnerability. None of the other activities were associated with vulnerability.

Attending Parenting Classes, Workshops, or Programs

Thirty-one percent of parents reported having ever attended a parenting class, workshop, or

program. Participation was not associated with vulnerability on the EDI.

Parenting challenges

Figure 21 illustrates the percent of parents who reported various parenting challenges. Only three

significant relationships emerged between parenting challenges and likelihood of scoring low on

one or more EDI domains. Specifically, parents who reported using drugs/alcohol, experiencing

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Played together

Talked about child's day

Participated in physical activity/family activities

Gone on an outing together

Done household chores together

Helped with printing letters, numbers or child's…

Worked on the sounds of letters

Worked on arts, crafts or drawing with him/her

Told or read him/her a story

Sang songs or said rhymes

Played simple math games

Percent

Everyday 3 or more times Once or twice Not at all

difficulties with finances or having enough food were also more likely to have a child who were

vulnerable.

Figure 21: Self-reported parenting challenges

The total number of challenges reported by parents ranged from 0 to 10. Figure 22 illustrates the

average number of challenges reported by parents from each neighbourhood. The fewest

challenges were reported by parents living in Banbury, Henderson, and West Brant (shown in

green). The greatest number of challenges (shown in red), were experienced by parents living in

Eagle Place, followed by Homedale-William and Core.

Figure 22: Average number of challenges reported by parents by neighbourhood

Parental School Involvement

Parents were asked about how many times they had attended parent-teacher conferences, school

meetings, school or class events, or volunteered in their child’s classroom since the beginning of

the school year. An overall parental involvement score was created by adding together the scores

for each item. While the potential existed for scores to range from 0 (no involvement whatsoever)

to 8 (engaging in all activities 3 or more times), Figure 23 illustrates that most parents engaged in

1 or 2 classroom activities once or twice and that there was some variability between

neighbourhoods. Parents living in South Brant County, West Brant County, and Terrace Hill

reported the highest degree of parental involvement (shown in green), while parents living in

West Brant, Homedale-William, and Eagle place reported the lowest degree of involvement

(shown in red).

Figure 23: Parental school involvement score by neighbourhood, parent-reported

Participants whose overall participation score was in the lowest 33.3% of scores were

characterized as ‘low’ in school involvement; those who scored between 33.4% and 66.6% of

scores were characterized as ‘medium’; and those who scored in the highest 33.3% of scores

(between 66.7% and 100%) were characterized as ‘high’ in school involvement. Figure 24

illustrates that children whose parents were highly involved in their classroom were significantly

less likely to be vulnerable compared to children whose parents’ involvement was characterized as

low.

Figure 24: Degree of parental school involvement and vulnerability

Barriers to Parental Involvement

Parents were asked to indicate barriers to their involvement in school activities by choosing one

or more of them from a list of potential barriers. The top barrier for parental involvement was

‘times don’t work/conflict with work’ which was reported by 58.2% of parents (see Figure 25).

Figure 25: Barriers to parental involvement in school activities, parent-reported

Note. Neighbourhood data is not available due to the small sample sizes for individual response categories; the data is suppressed to protect confidentiality.

28.822.9

16.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Low Moderate High

Pe

rce

nt

vu

lne

rab

le

Degree of parental involvement

Physical activity and active transportation

Participation in Sports or Physical Activity

Approximately two-thirds of parents (61%) reported that their children participated in sports or

physical activity at least once a week with a coach (e.g., swimming lessons, baseball, hockey).

Around three-quarters of parents (73%) stated their children participated in physical activities

without a coach (e.g., biking, skate-boarding)(see Fig. 26). Data analysis revealed that children

who were involved in sports with a coach once a week or more were less likely to be vulnerable

compared to children who were not at all involved in sports with a coach. There was no

significant relationship between EDI vulnerability and participation in sports without a coach.

Figure 26: Rates of participation in sports or physical activity over the past 12 months, parent-

reported

Figures 27 and 28 illustrate the proportion of children who participated in sports or physical

activity at least once a week with a coach and without a coach, respectively, by neighbourhood.

The proportion of children participating in sports with a coach at least once a week ranged from

38.0% in the Core to 78.4% in Henderson (see Figure 27), while the proportion of children who

participated in sports without a coach at least once a week ranged from 52.2% in Terrace Hill to

93.3% in South Brant County (see Figure 28).

Fig. 27 Percent of children participating in sports or physical activity with a coach at least once a

week over the past 12 months by neighourhood, parent-reported

Fig. 28 Percent of children participating in sports or physical activity without a coach at least once

a week over the past 12 months by neighourhood, parent-reported

Family physical activity

Parents were asked to report how often they or another adult close to their child had participated

in physical activity/family activities (e.g., walk, bike ride, playing outside) with their child during

the past 7 days. 39.8% of parents reported engaging in family physical activities ‘everyday’ while

42.6% of parents reported engaging in physical activities ‘3 or more times’ (see Figure 29).

Engaging in family physical activities 3 or more times per week was associated with a decreased

vulnerability risk.

Figure 29: Participation in family-based physical activity over the past 7 days, parent-reported

Child’s Mode of Transportation to School

Two-thirds of parents (61%) reported that their children were either driven to school or took a

school bus or taxi (see Figure 30). Children from only 39% of families walked to school. There was

no relationship between EDI vulnerability and mode of transportation.

Figure 30: Children’s mode of school transportation, parent-reported

Figure 31 illustrates the percentage of kids who walked or biked to school (i.e., active

transportation) by neighbourhood. Not surprisingly, the proportion of children who walked or

Not at all 0.7%Once or twice

17%

3 or more times42.6%

Everyday39.8%

Participation in family-based physical activity (past 7 days)

biked to school varied substantially among neighbourhoods. Children living in the Counties were

least likely to walk to school, most likely due to the greater geographical dispersion present in

these communities.

Figure 31: Percentage of children who walk or bike to school by neighbourhood, parent-reported

Note. NR = Data not reportable due to small numbers of children in this category.

Conclusions This report represents the first examination of the link between early childhood experiences and

child development in Brant using the Kindergarten Parents Survey and the Early Development

Instrument. Based on these results, the following conclusions can be made:

Children’s early experiences play an important role in shaping later

developmental outcomes o How we know: Most KPS variables were significantly related to EDI scores,

meaning that children’s environment and early experiences is related to their

physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development. For example, children

whose mothers took parental leave were less likely to be vulnerable on one or

more EDI domains.

Most children in Brant are in good health and have access to a family

doctor. However, there is still room for improvement. o How we know: Over 90% of parents felt their child’s health was ‘very good’ or

‘excellent’ and over 97% had access to a doctor to whom they could talk about

their child’s health. However, this means that 10% still felt their child’s health was

not ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ and 3% of families lack access to a family doctor.

The social determinants of health and neighbourhood are important o How we know: Socio-demographic characteristics such as income, parental

education, family status, and the neighbourhoods in which children live were all

significantly related with children’s development. Specifically, children from single

parent families, families with lower income and education attained, and particular

neighbourhoods were more likely to be vulnerable.

Stability matters

o How we know: Children who had moved two or more times were more likely to

be vulnerable compared to children who never moved or who had only moved

once.

Parent engagement matters o How we know: Children whose parents were more involved (e.g., more involved

at school and did more activities such as arts and crafts and chores) were less likely

to be vulnerable compared to children whose parents were less involved.

Program use should be promoted o How we know: Numerous free programs exist in Brant for children and families,

such as parent and child drop-ins and cultural programs. However, the number of

parents reporting having attended these programs remains low. Specifically, 44.4%

of parents reported using the public library while all other program use was

reported by less than one quarter of parents. Evidence exists that programs are

important. For example, children whose family visited the public library on a

regular basis were less likely to be vulnerable on the EDI compared to children

whose families had not visited the library on a regular basis.

Physical activity should be promoted

o How we know: Daily physical activities (walking or biking to school and family-

based physical activities) were reported by fewer than 40% of parents. Active

transportation also varied greatly depending on the neighbourhood children lived

in, highlighting the importance of the built environment when it comes to

promoting walking or biking to school.

Strengths and Limitations

This report has a number of strengths. Most importantly, it presents the findings from the

first ever Brant Kindergarten Parents Survey. This enabled us to examine for the

relationship between children’s early experiences and development outcomes using local

data. As evidenced by the number of significant associations, these results highlight the

importance of the early years for child development. In addition, we had complete EDI

and KPS data for 883 students, which resulted in an impressive sample size representing

approximately 70% of all children who were in senior kindergarten during the 2011-2012

school year.

Despite these strengths, several limitations also need to be acknowledged. The KPS asks

parents to recount experiences which in some cases took place over five years earlier.

Thus, the accuracy of their responses is dependent on their ability to recall this period in

their lives. Most importantly, the correlational nature of the data precludes us from

drawing any cause-effect conclusions regarding the effects of individual child experiences

on children’s development. As such, all of the relations observed are merely associations

and cannot be interpreted to mean that a particular experience was directly responsible

for any given developmental outcome.