Public Policy in Early Childhood Education and Care

Figure 1 illustrates the major policy questions and choices all governments face in the early childhood education and care (ECEC) area. All governments must confront five sets of questions: What: what types of ECEC services, of what quality, and what content and pedagogy should be provided? For whom: who should benefit from the services? How much: what should be the scale of provision and investment of resources? By whom: who should pay — the government, the private sector, the individual parents — and in what proportions? How: how should the services be structured, organised and delivered? The first two sets of questions cover the issues of access to types of programmes, their quality and the profile of participation by age and other socioeconomic categories the third covers the question of overall commitment of resources, or investment, while the fourth raises the question of sharing of the burden of this investment. How much should it be by the private sector, how much by governments; what contributions should be made by parents and by from different socioeconomic groups, etc?

A basic point I would like to emphasise is that these questions are always present even if they are not explicitly taken into account by governments. No matter what actions are taken or not taken by governments, the resulting experience does answer these questions in one form or another. My plea, therefore, is that it is important for governments to consider these questions explicitly so that they have a better understanding of the actions they do or do not undertake and they are better aware of the consequences of particular action or inaction.

Figure 1 portrays the fundamental determinants of policy choices. It makes the point that the policy decisions regarding the five sets of questions posed above stem, in a fundamental way, from some basic value judgements societies make about the child and childhood. These views, in turn, shape (i) the views in regard to the division and the nature of the respective roles and responsibilities between the state and the family in regard to ECEC, and (ii) the division between the role of education in relation to the roles of care and development considerations related to the child. Together, these two blocks shape the nature of choices in respect of the key parameters of ECEC policy as described in Figure 2. This has meant that ECEC policy has been beset with two types of tensions: (i) the role and responsibilities of parents vs. those of government and states; (ii) the role of education vs. care and development of children.

The debates around these two tensions have shaped how countries have gone about making their choices, which are deeply embedded in societal values, national context, etc. The value judgements societies make could, again, be explicit or implicit. My point here, and a plea, is that governments and societies would do better to be explicit about the value judgements they have regarding childhood and other factors shown in Figure 2.

The policy framework described by these two figures provides a good point of departure for reviewing the existing profile of provision of ECEC services in OECD countries. I will take the five sets of questions in turn but will consider “What” and “For Whom” together in one section, as each refers to access by the type of services.

The patterns of access and participation show even more clearly how they are shaped by the societal values identified in Figure 2. The data on access by age and income groups illustrates the point.

Age Groups

In Europe, the concept of universal access is generally accepted. Most countries provide all children with at least two years of free, publicly-funded provision before they begin primary school.

Access patterns differ significantly for children at 3 years or older compared to the under-3. For the latter group, coverage is generally sketchy. The age at which young children have a legal right to attend free school-based ECEC varies considerably across countries: it is 21/2 years in Belgium; 3 in Italy; and 4 in the Netherlands and the UK. There is a variety of providers including informal arrangements. In several countries majority of young children remain for at least part of the working day in the care of unregistered childminders or providers. In most cases, parents pay some a part of fees. Coverage is highest in Denmark and Sweden.

At age 3, the picture for centre-based information is far from universal in many countries such as Belgium, France and Italy (See Figure 3). In several other countries it is over 50 per cent: the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. But coverage is negligible in several other countries such as in Canada, Greece, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, Switzerland and Turkey. At age 5, there is still considerable variability in coverage among countries but it is not as large as at age 3 (See Figure 4).

Recent research, summarised in Starting Strong II, offers a compelling case for investment in ECEC. The arguments are based on the contribution ECEC can make to personal, cognitive and social development of the child; to social benefits for the individual and the society; and to economic and fiscal returns for the individual and the society.

In regard to child’s development, neurological studies provide important evidence that a developmentally and emotionally stimulating environment for children in their early years can even increase the physical size of the brain in addition to improving different capacities of the brain. This potential is especially high around age 3.

Longitudinal studies testify to long term cognitive gains for children who participated in quality ECEC programmes. They benefit, as well, from better social and emotional adaptation and smoother transition to school. The cognitive improvements from early childhood programmes can lay the groundwork for lifelong learning.

Longitudinal studies that have examined children over long periods stretching into adulthood and working life have documented other social benefits in the form of better health and lower incidence of anti-social behaviour including crimes. Based on these social benefits, studies have shown that early quality ECEC intervention for children from low socio-economic and disadvantaged backgrounds in the United States can pay for itself through reduced costs of remedial social and health programmes in later life.

A wide range of economic benefits from early ECEC intervention has also been documented, ranging from economic rewards to the child, labour market benefits in the form of higher productivity, greater participation of women in the labour market, higher fiscal returns to the government, and a higher rate of economic growth.

Taking these wider social and economic benefits into account, the overall rate of return to investment in ECEC is calculated to be anywhere from $2 for every one invested to $14 or more for each dollar invested. These calculations are clearly sensitive to specific conditions of the studies undertaken but the overall conclusion remains robust: investment in ECEC pays for itself.

The level of the investment required can be estimated on the basis of cost per child of the required quality of provision and the number of children of different ages to be covered — for all parents who want such services for their children. Even though good estimates of the per unit cost of quality provision are not available, nor a good estimate of the proportion of parents who want ECEC provision for their children, it is safe to say that the estimated resource figure would be quite large as a proportion of the GDP.

One indication of how large the resource requirements could be can be gauged from the actual expenditure on early years (0 to 6 years), as a proportion of GDP, which is depicted in Figure 5. Denmark, at the top end, spends close to 2 per cent of the GDP. There may still be gaps in provision and in quality in Demark. But if the country was taken as a benchmark, some 2% of the GDP would be needed to be invested in early years. As can be seen from the table, there is a large variation across the countries; some countries like Canada and Italy spend only 0.2% and 0.4% respectively. The table also shows that different societies have chosen very different levels of investment. We have also seen that the levels of investment have resulted in differentiated levels of coverage across countries and within countries across different age and income groups. There is no political consensus across countries on devoting the resources needed to provide universal ECEC services to all parents who want it.

If the case for higher levels of investment in ECEC is accepted, where should the resources for such investment come from? This raises two further questions: first, what should be the contribution from public sources; and second, what mechanisms are most effective for allocating public resources?

The answer to the first question is, in part, based on the argument that, just as for compulsory schooling, the social and economic benefits of early childhood education are for all society and therefore ECEC should be publicly provided. However, as depicted in Figure 2 above, the relative roles of the government and the private sector are value judgements of societies. We see the differing nature of choices made by different societies in this regard: In general liberal countries argue that governments should intervene only if there are instances of market failure. The views about the strong role of parents in this tradition (US, Canada, Australia) also argue for a larger role of the private sector. There are also corporatist models among the OECD countries where ECEC was provided in the past by corporate entities (Germany, Austria, Italy and France). The social democratic tradition, on the other hand, proposes ECEC as universally available to all citizens linked to the individual’s attachment to the labour force (the Nordic countries).

These differences in societal values determine the overall level of resources devoted to ECEC. However, despite these differences, the role of public expenditure is quite prominent in all countries shown in Figure 6. Even in a country like the US, the public sector contributes a larger proportion than the private sector in expenditure on pre-primary education (3 to 6 year olds). The reason for this lies in the recognition of the wider social and economic benefits that accrue to the society as a whole. One point that needs to be emphasised is that greater investment on the part of governments makes an important contribution in contributing to equity in the provision of ECEC services: there is a clear evidence from the available data that equity in the provision of ECEC services is directly linked to how much the public sector contributes. The benefits of private sector participation, by its very nature, go largely to children from the well to do families.

The second question concerns the mechanism of allocating the resources. For example, should governments provide the services directly? If not, should they use demand-side measures or supply-side measures to allocate investment for ECEC?

There is a general agreement that direct provision of ECEC services by the government is not ideal in all circumstances and that thee is a role for the private sector in supplying ECEC services. The arguments here are partly specialisation — governments may not be best equipped to provide the services — and partly on incentives — with the proper incentives the private sector could be made to generate more capacity for the same level of allocation.

There is a very heated debate about the choice between demand and supply-side measures. In essence, the demand side measures — such as tax credits or vouchers, employers’ subsidy to workers, income-contingent subsidies through the tax system — put money in the hands of parents and expect parents to choose the type of services they need. Economists, in general, favour this approach on the grounds that the approach provides for effective and efficient use of scarce public funds: parents choose the most attractive ECEC service and the inefficient suppliers are weeded out. The counter argument is that the underlying assumption that parents have good knowledge about the quality of services is rarely met so that the benefits of the parental choice approach are not realised. In fact, poor quality suppliers may drive quality providers out of the market. In addition, parents may divert funds for other purposes; the market is decentralised and chaotic and may not be available in the poor areas; and in general, it is extremely hard to assess the quality of provision ahead of time. The impact of a decision on the child may only be known when it is too late.

The support for supply-side measures (subsidies to private providers for meeting certain standards and regulations) comes partly from the limitations of the demand-side approaches and partly from the additional benefit the approach offers. The key one is a better guarantee of quality that the approach offers. In addition, the approach can be modelled to provide considerable choice to parents. The counter argument against supply side approaches is it high bureaucratic cost of monitoring quality.

Aside from these theoretical considerations, the actual evidence shows that demand-side measures often offer very small amounts of subsidy to parents and that the approach has failed to assure quality. The Starting Strong II report offers examples of such failures. To conclude, countries need to weigh the advantages and the disadvantages of the two approaches and decide on the appropriate mix. The main criterion of choice should be that the quality of the service provided is not compromised.

One of the most vexing policy issues of ECEC provision is its governance mechanisms. Questions of governance include both the planning and development of strategies and arrangements for delivery of services. The complexities arise because governance ECEC lies at the intersection of several ministries (of children, education, health, welfare, labour, and finance), layers of government (national, state/provincial, local), providers and a range of interest groups.

On the planning of strategy alone, it is essential to bring various stakeholders together — since many of the decisions are based on societal value judgements (as shown in Figure 2). For example, in some countries, ECEC may be a provincial or state not national jurisdiction. Yet, questions of equity of ECEC opportunity or quality of provision, such as pedagogical and curricular frameworks, may require a national consensus. On the delivery of services, co-ordinating different ministries and diverse providers and stakeholder is a major challenge.

One approach is to provide integrated services. Nordic countries are prime examples of this approach in which all ECEC services are integrated under one ministry (usually but not always education). The advantages of a unified system are greater consistency across sectors in regulation, funding and staffing regimes. The transition from ECEC to primary school is smoother; there is improved supervision of services and exercise of public accountability. In contrast, a split system often means poorer services for children under-3.

As an alternative approach to integration under one ministry, some countries are designating a lead ministry, often education, to exercise co-ordination responsibilities. The leadership of education ministries is favoured because of the link with lifelong learning. The disadvantages of a link with the education ministry are that it leads to a “schoolification” bias over ECEC. The curricula may become unsuitable if there is an imposition of the concerns of the primary school. Even training of teachers and caregivers, inspectors may be dominated by the primary school considerations.

A third approach is simply to set a number of coordinating mechanisms. Many of these are detailed in the Starting Strong II report. Their chief disadvantage is the lack of necessary authority behind the co-ordination function.

In conclusion, the issue of fragmented policy thinking as well as delivery of ECEC services is a major problem that ought to be recognised. The key is to find approaches that would avoid or minimise fragmentation in policy development, programme development and delivery, and knowledge base development for policy making, implementation and evaluation. The issue is not which ministry or level of government takes the lead and performs the co-ordinating function. The issue is that some mechanism ought to be found to avoid fragmentation.