5 Early Childhood Educators Give You 5 Reasons Why Funding The Early Years Would Benefit Everyone
Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the news has been full of stories about the child care crisis. This is an old problem escalated, made more evident, and highlighted nationally for the first time this century.
The current model of providing care and education for young children — a patchwork of small and large businesses, in-home and center-based, government subsidized and funded through tuition and fundraising — is failing everyone in America. Even if you do not have young children, the child care crisis is impacting your life.
In 2019 ReadyNation found that the U.S. loses $57 billion per year in revenue, wages, and productivity as a result of unstable and under-supported childcare infrastructure, employers lose $12.7 billion annually due to child care challenges, and taxpayers suffer with lower tax revenues (Council for a Strong America, 2019). In this article we will share how this nation is still reeling from the effects of a presidential veto in the 1970s.
We are five early childhood educators (ECEs) from different parts of the U.S., with different stories and backgrounds, who have lived similar realities when it comes to the challenges faced by ECEs in the field. We have seen firsthand how teachers’ low wages, high turnover, and underappreciation affect all involved; especially the lives of teachers, children and their families. Brought together by our passion for our field, we hope that together we can all work to fund early education and care (ECEC) in the United States.
In the following paragraphs you will read five reasons we are advocating for change, why we believe this policy change will benefit you no matter who you are, and how you can be part of the solution. We will trace history and offer both historical and contemporary perspectives on society’s view of child care, both here in the U.S. and abroad.
We will share our passion for this topic as inspired by a city in Northern Italy, Reggio Emilia, whose commitments to young children has inspired the world to think differently about ECEC. Reggio Emilia is one example that there are cities and countries that have had success with viewing the care and education of the young child as a civic responsibility. That city passed Law 1044 the same year of Nixon’s veto, a law that institutionalized schooling for children under the age of three as a right and has been building a public early education system for the past 60 years with nearly 15% of the city’s budget going to support this system. Over time this has raised the birth rate, civic and democratic engagement, infant-toddler school participation to 41%, preschool aged school participation to 90%, and lowered crime rates (Edwards, et. al., 2012).
The 5 Reasons Why Funding The Early Years Would Benefit Everyone:
Reason #1: Economy
Contributed by Julie Dowd
In looking for care some of the questions that arise are, “How do we afford a high quality program, do we want to enroll our child in a large center or family child care, will I be able to sustain my employment?” ECEC is vital to our economy. “In 2016, the National Survey of Children’s Health revealed that almost 2 million parents with children under the age of 5 had to step away from the workforce in the last 12 months of that year” (Rawjani, 2021, para. 2). Finding child care and paying for it can cause tremendous stress for families who typically spend a large percentage of their income on care. Child care may be the most agonizing decision many families face, not to mention families need to secure an infant spot while pregnant or even sooner due to long waitlists at programs. Being a small family childcare owner for the past 14 years I can attest to the limitations families are up against when looking for child care. As a small business owner I am in the position to keep our workforce afloat by providing continuity of care; where caregivers and children are together longer than a year, usually up to the first three years of their life promoting social emotional development by forming attachments with the caregiver.
The ECEC system has been underfunded for decades resulting in an insufficient number of high quality programs and an unbearably low wage for ECEs. While families are struggling to secure and pay for a spot, centers are facing staffing shortages. We saw in the recent pandemic just how essential child care is when ECEC centers were forced to close their doors. Parents had to juggle working from home and caring for their children. Working families need a paycheck to provide for their families and businesses need ECEC to maintain the workforce. Elliot Haspel, childcare policy expert and author of Crawling Behind America’s Childcare Crisis and How to Fix It, spoke recently in Fast Company about productivity losses for business as parents are forced to reduce hours. Continued absences due to “breakdown in childcare”. He goes on to give three reasons that child care could be the best investment for all; “increases in productivity, increases in maternal labor-force participation, and increases in the economic output of the childcare sector itself” (Haspel, Elliot, 2021).
We know there is a child care crisis, it’s not old news. As an ECE I want people to remember “Without them, our economy would suffer tremendously. ECEC is essential for working families to continue paying the bills. Businesses need ECEC in order to retain its workforce and continue to earn profits. State and local governments, along with the federal government, need ECEC for the economy to recover” (ChildCare Aware of America, 2022).
Reason #2: Equality
Contributed by Lauren Bergeron
During World War II, the Lanham Act opened, funded, and trained ECEs to have ECEC available for dollars a day to encourage mothers to enter the workforce (Haspel, 2018). While men were overseas, women were needed in the workforce to build the weaponry, work the land, and support our economy on the homefront. Afterwards, instead of acknowledging women for their contributions, American society did its best to erase this moment in history — even passing another Lanham Act quickly after, this act being the Federal Trademark Statute of Law. Now, when one searches “Lanham Act,” instead of learning about the time when we had universal ECEC, they see trademark law. After the war, the same politicians who had been against the idea of women in the workplace prior, pushed to end the funding for the over 3,000 ECEC centers to force women out of the jobs and make them available to the men who were returning. Nearly all of these high-quality centers closed (Halperin & Mellon, 2020). This wasn’t the only time in our nation’s history that we had the chance to have an infrastructure to support families. The next opportunity came in 1971 and was called the Comprehensive Child Development Act. After being passed on a bipartisan basis, it was vetoed on the desk of President Nixon. News reporters describe Nixon’s reasoning to be that the government’s financial contribution to child development would be “financially irresponsible”, as it would shift the country’s values to communal child rearing and “weaken” the American family (Haspel, 2018). The infrastructure historically present for having a family in America has perpetually fallen on the backs of women, with the American ideal of what makes one a ‘good mother’: a homemaker in a nuclear family and the care taking of young children historically being considered ‘women’s work’.
As a first generation college graduate with teaching licensure, my own pride and passion kept me from seeing myself as a stay-at-home mom. I am proud that my marriage overcomes centuries of cultural norms when it comes to gender equality: I do not usually care for my three year old more than my husband, take care of more housework than my husband, nor is the expectation that I am serving this role over my husband. I have been inspired to write this reason for the funding of ECEC as essential infrastructure not only as a working mother offering support on a daily basis to other working mothers, but also by the words of the Italian founder of the Reggio Emilia Approach, Loris Malaguzzi, “It is not so important whether the mother chooses the role of homemaker or working mother, but rather it is the fulfillment and satisfaction she feels in her choice and the support she receives from her family, the childcare center, and, at least minimally, the surrounding culture. The quality of relationship between parent and child becomes more important than the sheer quantity of time they spend together” (Edwards, et. al., 2012, p. 40).
Funding is a necessity to support women’s rights, both mothers of young children and the ECEs who care for them. The choice of our government not to fund ECEC is a glaring example of systemic oppression. When women don’t feel a choice on the topic of being a stay-at-home mom, they are driven into a position that affects their ability to self-sustain in case of marital discourse, mental health, sense of belonging, social security, and the generational wealth of their offspring. In contrast, funding this infrastructure would bolster the empowerment of women — women have a right and deserve choice to be in the workforce, to follow their passions, and be viewed as valuable contributors to society as a whole. Not only does the availability of high quality ECEC allow women to pursue their own careers, but the majority of people employed in ECEC are women. Funding ECEC would provide livable wages for the women who feel fulfillment in this essential career. “Early care and education is substantially ‘funded’ through low teacher pay and inadequate supports for ECE teachers, who are primarily women, specifically women of color. 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” (Gould, et. al., 2020).
A communal approach to child rearing has been proven to benefit children and whole communities outside of America (Edwards et. al., 2012). Research has shown that mothers with jobs raise successful children. Daughters raised by working moms are more likely to be employed as adults and have higher incomes. Sons raised by working mothers become adults who spend an hour more on care tasks for their family unit each week (Haspel, 2019). Multiple research studies show that it is not unhealthy for a child to have a working mother, and it may be healthier for many mothers to be a part of the work place in addition to having a family. It is the quality of time and not the quantity that defines motherhood.
Reason #3: Equity
Contributed by Betsy Ferney
I frequently think about equity in my work as the director of a small ECEC program in North Carolina. A group of other educators and I dream about a time when the families in our programs accurately reflect the diverse city in which we live and work. But we are not there yet. Higher quality programs are more expensive and subsidy programs only cover so much of the cost. These factors lead to a system where even whenproviders and families want diverse programs, socioeconomic diversity is rarely achievable. ECEC is an equity issue and should be treated as such.
We often read that “It takes a village to raise a child” and yet in the United States, more than half of families in twenty-two states live in child care deserts. These deserts are defined as places where there are three or more children per child care space (Sparks, 2017, p. 4). As a nation we are failing children and families, leaving them to fend for themselves instead of supporting them as a community should. The cost of high quality ECEC, or any ECEC, is also often prohibitively expensive. Hamm et al. share in their publication America, It’s Time to Talk About Child Care (2019), “Right now, young children also have the highest poverty rate of any age cohort in the country.9 […] children of color and children in immigrant families are more likely to grow up in families who are poor or living paycheck to paycheck. Nearly one-quarter of young children live below the poverty level, and nearly half are in low-income families.10” (p. 3). There is a correlation between the socioeconomic status of a community and the quality of the ECEC available in that community (Cassidy et al., 2019) meaning that those children who are living in poverty have lower quality ECEC available to them, when it is available at all.
ECEC not only provides a place for children to go while their parents/guardians are at work, it also supports child and family well-being (Cassidy et al., 2019). Families who are unable to afford ECEC, particularly high quality ECEC, also miss out on information related to child development and other parental supports. ECEC should be a right for children and families in the US and the government is responsible for putting a system in place for children birth to five. Harlin and Brown (2006) write, “An educated populace is the foundation for a strong and just society. Failure to uphold this responsibility and provide this right is a failure in the ability of a democratic nation to lead and govern” (p. 46).
Reason #4: Health & Well-Being
Contributed by Mariana Stefanini
As an ECEC teacher I have a lot of joyful experiences to share. But when it comes to the frustrating experiences, the increasing number of teachers unwilling to work in the field is at the center of the growing problem. High turnover and teachers leaving early care and education leaves early learning centers understaffed and places an immense toll on those who persist and stay.
Colleagues of mine who left the field completely or moved on to teach in the elementary years, report that pay is the main reason why they quit their jobs. They see early education as a job they loved, but which did not provide them a livable wage. ECEC teacher wages are not competitive when compared to salaries of teachers working with older children. The national mean annual wage estimate for childcare workers is $27,680, and preschool teachers is $36,460, while kindergarten teachers earn on average of $64,490 and elementary school teachers earn on average $67,080 a year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). These comparisons include ECEC teachers who have earned bachelor degrees, like their colleagues working with older children. With these statistics professionalizing the field to offer teachers, children and families better quality experiences, work, and relationships, looks like an intangible dream. Research shows us that during the first 5 years of life about 90% of the brain is developed. For such an incredible milestone we should have qualified professionals to support and guide children in these fundamental years. “Research has confirmed a link between less economic worry and better well-being of early educators and higher-quality interactions between teacher and child, that are so crucial to facilitating young children’s learning and development.” (Schkieber & McLean, 2018, para.6).
Any ECEC can tell you stories about being constantly asked to work longer hours, being unable to take breaks, not having paid planning time, or having little input on decisions about their own classrooms, teaching practices, and programs. We all know many teachers who depend on housing programs to afford a home for their families, and many who work more than one job. I am not talking about babysitting a few hours a week, but waitressing, cleaning houses, working in sales, and more. The stress of living paycheck to paycheck combined with the realities of the field, even when following our passions, is incredibly debilitating to manage hand in hand. Working with young children is a physically and emotionally demanding job. Inadequate working conditions, lack of benefits, and low pay result in stress and burnout.
The pandemic has aggravated this scenario. Classrooms and even entire ECEC centers have closed because of lack of teachers and qualified staff. Some educators left the field during this time due to the difficult work conditions. A former colleague, who decided to be a nanny instead of returning to her center after quarantine, reports that she was asked to work 10 hours a day, 5 days a week, due to covid preventive measures and lack of staff. Such a combination of factors have worsened the daily lives of teachers in the classrooms, making an already difficult reality, an unbearable one.
“High-quality early learning experiences depend on having a stable, effective workforce of early childhood educators” (Adelstein, 2018, para.7). A consistent teaching team, combining experienced and apprentice teachers who work together for a length of time with a group of children, provide the continuity, the security, the social emotional support that children need to thrive and learn, and the partnership that families need to foster this growth. On the other hand, teachers also benefit from such consistency, improving their quality of work because of improvements in peer relationships, continuity of the curriculum, the development and maintenance of a balanced routine and accountable schedule.
Teachers know how much parents pay for ECEC, and it is more than most can afford. The system is clearly not working when, on one side, you have families struggling to pay for ECEC, and on the other side, ECEC providers struggling to make a living. Public funded money must be provided to sustain the system. The recent crisis has proved that ECEC is an integral part of society, and that significant investments in the field are necessary. The health and well-being of the ECEC workforce depend on it, as much as the children, their families, and our society as a whole.
Reason #5: Investment
Contributed by Krystal Randall
As an ECE, I have encountered a wide range of quality in the field of ECEC. I’ve taught in schools with unlimited budgets, resources, and highly trained teachers; and I’ve encountered centers that embody quite the opposite. As a country, don’t we want all children to have access to high quality education? Through my years as an ECE, I’ve come to see one fact as true: the field requires investment through funding now.
I use the word investment because ECEC is not an expense with no return. Rather, investing in our nation’s youngest children would have many important and valuable impacts. Higher quality education and care birth-5 can result in shaping children adept problem solvers, communicators, and contributors to our culture. Access to higher quality ECEC can support children in being more ready to succeed in school, later in the workforce, and in life. Investment can broaden the scope of access to higher quality ECEC for children and multiply the return on investment for our country.
Having once worked in an independent school with a strong budget and higher pay for teachers, I saw the direct impact that funding had on the quality of ECEC. Because the school had higher funding, teachers were educated at a higher level as well. They were not pressed to worry about funds and to work with limited resources, but could place their focus on the children and in bettering their practice as teachers. Professionalism was held in the highest regard for these teachers as they saw themselves and their positions with respect and importance because they were being well funded. This carried over to the children who experienced intentionally planned curriculum and well executed teaching based on their individual needs and questions. This motivated the children to become deeply engaged with learning. Of course, higher investment meant children had access to higher quality materials and experiences as well. In my opinion, they demonstrated a marked difference in academic and social development from children I’ve worked with in lower funded schools. Cassidy et al (2019) tells us that “socioeconomic indicators in the community are tied to the quality of the ECE programs in that community. We need to ensure that the ECE system is not perpetuating the ‘gap in educational opportunity across communities’” (p. 293). All schools should have the infrastructure to create such well funded experiences for young children to be seen as, and grow into, the contributing members of society they are meant to be.
To put this investment into numbers, I will share a seminal study. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study followed 123 participants who were deemed “at risk” from the age of three until they turned forty years old, some of whom participated in their preschool program and some of whom did not. The study found that “the economic return to society of the Perry Preschool program was $244,812 per participant on an investment of $15,166 per participant — $16.14 per dollar invested” (Schweinhart, 2005, p.3). That is a 1,514.22% return on investment (ROI) for those who attended the preschool program. The study goes on to share that “of that return, $195,621 went to the general public…and $49,190 went to each participant…Of the public return, 88% ($171,473) came from crime savings, 4% ($7,303) came from education savings, 7% ($14,078) came from increased taxes due to higher earnings, and 1% ($2,768) came from welfare savings” (Schweinhart, 2005, p.3–4).
These ROI numbers offer insight into the power of early education settings contributing to our nation’s economic well-being and can not be ignored. No longer can we allow for some communities to slip behind while others excel ahead because of their gaps in funding. These disparities cause division and inequity rather than unity. We must demand that communities across our country have access to high quality, well funded, and professional ECEC. Investment in ECEC is investment in our country’s present and future.
Call to Action:
When early care and education is treated as a public good, when this infrastructure is healthy and strong, we will all benefit. We have done our homework, we have done the math, and it doesn’t add up. Early care and early education has the potential to benefit the economy by raising wages for millions of educators, and ensuring consistent child care for the workforce, and by stabilizing and growing the workforce. Creating a system of reliable, affordable ECEC would uplift women and give mothers real choices about work. ECEC is also an equity issue that impacts millions of children and families. We also advocate for funding for child care on behalf of ourselves and our fellow ECEs. Caring for young children is fundamental work and should be treated as such. Finally, investing in early care and education is a very sound investment in our future as a nation, and a vital investment in the present for children, families, and early childhood educators.
Please join Early Childhood Educators by sharing this article, and contacting your elected officials to advocate for federal funding for universal child care.
To learn more about the child care crisis:
Crawling Behind: America’s Child Care Crisis and How to Fix It by Elliot Haspel
About the Contributors:
All authors are receiving their M.ED this Spring as a part of the first cohort of the Innovative Early Childhood Education program at the University of Colorado in partnership with Boulder Journey School
Lauren Bergeron, Licensed Early Childhood Educator Teaching at Williston Enrichment Center in Vermont serving children birth-5, 14 years working in the field of early education and care
Julie Dowd, Owner and Teacher at Second Steps in Millis, Massachusetts, serving children birth-5, 14 years working in the field of early education and care
Betsy Ferney, Director of a small, privately owned child care center in Durham, North Carolina, 18 years working in the field of early education and care
Krystal Randall, Preschool Teacher and Professional Development Coordinator at My School in Dover, New Hampshire, 9 years working in the field of early education and care
Mariana Stefanini, Co-teacher of a 3–5 years old group, in a cooperative nursery school in Massachusetts, 12 years working in the field of early education and care
References
Adelstein, S. (2018, April 12). Educator wages don’t reflect the significance of early childhood. Urban Institute. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/educator-wages-dont-reflect-significance-early-childhood
Cassidy, D. J. et al (July 2019). Improving the lives of teachers in the early care and education field to better support children and families. Family Relations, 68, 288–297.
ChildCare Aware of America. (2022). Demanding Change: Repairing our Child Care System. https://www.childcareaware.org/demanding-change-repairing-our-child-care-system/#ChildCareWorkforce
Want to grow the economy? fix the child care crisis. Council for a Strong America. (2019, January 19). Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://www.strongnation.org/articles/780-want-to-grow-the-economy-fix-the-child-care-crisis
Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. E. (2012). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation. Santa Barbara (California): Praeger.
Friedman-Krauss, A. H. et al. (2021). The state of preschool 2020. National Institute for Early Education Research
Gould, E., Whitebrook, M., Mokhiber, Z., & Austen, L. J. E. (2020, January 15). Early child care and education in the States. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved April 20, 2022, from https://www.epi.org/publication/ece-in-the-states/
Hamm, K. et al. (2019). America, it’s time to talk about child care.
Halperin, A. D., & Mellon, A. W. (2020, April 30). Why don’t we have national child care? the COVID-19 crisis and a history of the Child Care Movement. New-York Historical Society. Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://www.nyhistory.org/blogs/why-dont-we-have-national-child-care-the-covid-19-crisis-and-a-history-of-the-child-care-movement
Harlin, R. & Brown, C. (2006). Issues in education: A universal early childhood education system. Childhood Education. 83(1), 44–47. DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2006.10522876
Haspel, E. (2019). Crawling behind: America’s childcare crisis and how to fix it. Black Rose Writing.
Haspell, E. (2021). American parents don’t get how much life is about to improve. The Atlantic, October 31. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/child-care-biden-congress-build-back-better/620558/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=178151358&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9HkD6C5Ayqvawh8az3_4TqnYAdWDr2omW6sYDTKceX8yn0by0x7ke_0t4YpO1jbc5Y1f1iu7K5WO5BK-vo7eZxXWhTkQ&utm_content=178151358&utm_source=hs_email
Haspel, Elliot. (2021). This is how childcare boosts the economy and pays for itself. Fast Company. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from
https://www.fastcompany.com/90708656/this-is-how-child-care-boosts-the-economy-and-pays-for-itself
May 2021 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States. (2021, May). US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
McGinn, K. L., Ruiz Castro, M., & Lingo, E. L. (2019). Learning from Mum: Cross-national evidence linking maternal employment and adult children’s outcomes. Work, Employment and Society, 33(3), 374–400.
Rawjani, Saba. (2021, June 14). The Childcare Crisis Is a Threat to Our Nation. Student Voices// Health Care Policy. Columbia Mailman School of Public Health.
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/childcare-crisis-threat-our-nation
Schlieber, M., & Mclean, C. (2020, January 21). Educator Work Environments Are Children’s Learning Environments: How and Why They Should Be Improved. CSCCE. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://cscce.berkeley.edu/educator-work-environments-are-childrens-learning-environments-how-and-why-they-should-be-improved/
Schweinhart, Lawrence J. Ph.D. (2005) Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Sparks, S. D. (2017). Early-childhood education; “mapping america’s child care deserts”.
Education Week, 37(3), 4–4.
Young, M., Montazer, S., & Singh, D. (2020). The consequences of living in childcare deserts: Evidence from canada. The Canadian Review of Sociology, 57(4), 550–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12316
