Skip to main content

Breaking the Silence on Early Child Care and Education Costs: A Values-Based Budget for Children, Parents, and Teachers in California

 

By Elise Gould, Marcy Whitebook, Zane Mokhiber, and Lea J.E. Austin, Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, July 23, 2019.

What this report finds: California’s child early care and education (ECE) system is underfunded, and California policymakers have not been willing to acknowledge the true cost of creating a comprehensive ECE system. Proposals for ECE reform have focused primarily on improving access and affordability for families but have ignored the elephant in the room: Early care and education is substantially “funded” through low teacher pay and inadequate supports for ECE teachers. In addition to being a serious injustice, lack of adequate financial and professional supports for ECE teachers compromises the consistency and quality of care children receive.

Why it matters: Before they enter kindergarten, young children need consistent care from teachers who are well prepared and well supported. Working parents need access to dependable, high-quality, affordable child care. And we need to send a message that the work of teaching young children, performed primarily by African American and Hispanic women, is a valuable and respected occupation in California. Early care and education should no longer be financed through low teacher pay.

What can be done about it: Policymakers and other stakeholders have an opportunity to disrupt the status quo and ensure that California’s ECE system has the funding it needs to work effectively for children, families, and teachers. In this report, we develop an estimate of what it would cost to provide high-quality and comprehensive early care and education for California’s families that doesn’t overburden them financially or come at the expense of ECE teachers. The total estimated annual cost of a fully phased-in system ranges from $29.7 to $75.4 billion, or $30,000 to $37,000 per child. The total cost depends largely on the number of children that would participate in such a system.

[Please click here to read more.]

Add Comment

Comments (4)

Newest · Oldest · Popular
Laura Haynes Collector posted:

What about 25K per child, paid to the stay at home mother or father?-- this is a plan I could get behind. 

Why do expensive outsourcing  of $37K per kid when we could do less-expensive insourcing and (where needed) couple it with support and mentoring?  Three years per kid is $75K per human, and according to economist James Heckman, if correctly applied it would pay a 13% return to society annually - forever.  Nearly 10K each year in saved costs and better outcomes for that child and mother... At 13%, a 75K investment in promoting healthy attachment and safe development would pay itself back by 3rd grade, and then it would pay off going forward.

ACES science tells us that when small children experience too much stress they can break internally.  Nature's plan for primates is dyadic care. Lets not pretend daycare is not a radical departure from dyadic care.  Yes, in native peoples the dyad is supplemented by other first degree relatives... but with a mother nearby and easily summoned by the baby's distress.  This is nothing like group care as practiced in modern America.  

Laura, thanks for stating the obvious. Kids need one-to-one care in order to thrive. Outsourcing childcare to strangers who are not emotionally attuned to a child is damaging to their development. But then today, the media is constantly extolling women who resume their careers soon after giving birth. They are held up as the role models for future generations. Sadly, the effects of this child-rearing practice will only be seen years later. Then, conveniently genetics is blamed. 

What about 25K per child, paid to the stay at home mother or father?-- this is a plan I could get behind. 

Why do expensive outsourcing  of $37K per kid when we could do less-expensive insourcing and (where needed) couple it with support and mentoring?  Three years per kid is $75K per human, and according to economist James Heckman, if correctly applied it would pay a 13% return to society annually - forever.  Nearly 10K each year in saved costs and better outcomes for that child and mother... At 13%, a 75K investment in promoting healthy attachment and safe development would pay itself back by 3rd grade, and then it would pay off going forward.

ACES science tells us that when small children experience too much stress they can break internally.  Nature's plan for primates is dyadic care. Lets not pretend daycare is not a radical departure from dyadic care.  Yes, in native peoples the dyad is supplemented by other first degree relatives... but with a mother nearby and easily summoned by the baby's distress.  This is nothing like group care as practiced in modern America.  

More group care may not be the best way to prevent child trauma!!  We have to be very discerning here.  Daycare does NOT benefit kids unless they are in a substandard home situation.

There are many traumas INHERENT to group care in early life:  -serial lost attachments (you bond w teacher then graduate to the next age room at the end of the year), -1/5 of the carrying and holding of a dyad-raised baby, cognitive learning forced into a window where implicit learning is developmentally appropriate, less secure attachment, less emotional self regulation, etc.

What is best and most efficient economically has NOTHING to do with what is best emotionally and developmentally for kids.

Post
Copyright © 2023, PACEsConnection. All rights reserved.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×