-
Title
-
Early Childhood Education and Care Services and Child Development: Economic Perspectives for Universal Approaches
-
extracted text
-
Early Childhood Education and Care
Services and Child Development:
Economic Perspectives for Universal
Approaches
C. KATHARINA SPIESS
Abstract
This essay analyses universal early childhood education and care (ECEC) services
from an economic perspective focusing on universal ECEC approaches. First,
it examines the effectiveness of ECEC expansions, reviewing research using
quasi-experimental approaches. It then discusses the possible mechanisms underlying the measured effects. These are related to both direct effects from ECEC services
on children and indirect ones occurring via maternal employment and well-being.
When ECEC-positive effects are detected, they mostly pertain to children from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This raises the question as to whether this group
of children is reached by universal ECEC services. The second part of the essay
focuses on this issue, describing differences in ECEC attendance by socioeconomic
background, distinguishing between different age groups and different aspects of
ECEC attendance. The challenges for future research are summarized at the end.
INTRODUCTION
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are receiving ever
greater attention. Increasingly, scholars of multiple disciplines acknowledge
that the provision of good ECEC services is of major importance for child
development. Education economists emphasize that investments in early
life have particularly high returns, being much higher than investments at
later ages. In particular, such considerations are linked to the work of the
Nobel Prize winner James Heckman and his coauthors. Based on their skill
formation model, they emphasize the complementarity of skills, predicting
that higher levels of skills at an earlier stage beget further development of
skills at a later stage (Cunha & Heckman, 2007; Cunha, Heckman, Lochner,
& Masterov, 2006). Thus, investments in ECEC services might be efficient
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
if they effectively increase children’s skills at an early stage. For a long
time, these effects were mainly analyzed by scholars from pedagogics
and developmental psychology. Recently, however, the effects of ECEC
attendance on child development are also studied by an increasing number
of economists.
Overall, systematic economic research on the effects of ECEC on children
has originated mainly in the American context. Economic research in this
field began by evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of particular high
quality intervention programs targeting disadvantaged children. Prominent examples include the still ongoing evaluation of the Perry Preschool
Program, one of the Abecedarian Programs, and the Chicago Child Parent
Program (e.g., Barnett, 2011). While the first two examples are small-scale
interventions, the last one involves more than 1000 children over several
years. Other studies evaluated larger programs, such as Head Start (a federal
program for low-income families). As most of this research is U.S.-related,
it focuses on a publicly funded ECEC system that, until quite recently,
was mainly designed to serve disadvantaged children. Thus, few studies
examine the effects of universal ECEC provision that is prevalent in Europe.
While the effects of the well-known high quality intervention studies show
relatively large effects on child development, even in the long run, such as
reductions in grade repetition, improved rates of high school completion,
higher wages, and so on, the effects are much smaller once it comes to larger
programs that offer ECEC at a much lower quality.
In contrast to the United States, most European countries, including Germany, have universal ECEC systems for children aged three or older, with
generally no targeted programs. In principle, universal ECEC services seek
to reach all children in a specific age group. For many years, there has been
a dearth of research on the effectiveness of such universal programs.
Independent of a universal or target approach, ECEC services also have
effects that relate to their care function, rather than their educational one.
ECEC services allow parents, in particular mothers, to combine family
responsibilities and formal employment. This care aspect may also affect
child development, albeit indirectly. A larger family income may positively
impact children’s well-being by increasing material well-being or indirectly
via improved parental well-being. Moreover, ECEC services, per se, can
increase parental well-being, as they facilitate the combination of work and
family life. Such changes in well-being might also affect child development.
Yet, such effects may arise from some ECEC but not from others.
The focus of this essay is on universal ECEC systems, as they are typical
of most European countries. Taking an economic perspective, this essay
describes some of the recent research in this area and discusses caveats
that might be addressed in future research. In the first part, I summarize
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
3
some recent evaluation studies on universal ECEC programs—focusing
on specific examples. This is followed by a discussion of the mechanisms
behind potential ECEC effects on child development. The second part
describes the coverage of such programs—taking Germany as an example:
Are there differences by socioeconomic status (SES) in the attendance of such
programs? If so, what are the underlying reasons? I conclude by highlighting
the challenges for future research.
EFFECTIVENESS OF UNIVERSAL PROGRAMS—SOME EXAMPLES
An increasing number of economic studies evaluate the effectiveness of universal programs on child development. One reason behind this trend is that
more and better micro data are available to researchers. In particular, the
increasing availability of longitudinal survey datasets including child development measures and of administrative datasets has allowed researchers to
analyze mid- or long-term outcomes of children.
Moreover, while much of the previous research mainly estimates associations, substantial improvements have been made in the methods used to
identify the causal effects of ECEC services on child development. Primarily
using quasi-experimental approaches, recent studies claim to measure true
ECEC effects by taking into account that many observable and, in particular,
unobservable factors influence the association between ECEC programs and
child development. These studies exploit ECEC policy changes to identify
the effects of ECEC services on child development in the short, middle, and
long runs. From an economic perspective, long-term effects are of particular
interest. If ECEC programs affect educational attainment, employment, and
health outcomes, as well as family formation processes, it is not only the
individual child who benefits but also society and the economy as a whole.
If ECEC programs, for example, reduce high school dropout rates, society
benefits from reduced expenditures on remedial services and increased tax
revenues generated by higher level of education and, in turn, of higher
earnings.
A first example of such evaluation studies analyzes the long-term effects
of the expansion, since 1975, of universal day care in Norway. Havnes
and Mogstad (2011) use administrative micro data covering almost the
entire Norwegian population to investigate this large-scale expansion of
subsidized child care. Their results show that subsidized ECEC had strong
positive effects on children’s educational attainment also reducing children’s
later welfare dependency. Subsample analyses indicate that children of low
educated mothers benefit the most from the increased availability of ECEC
services. A more recent study of the same ECEC reform examines the longer
term effect by looking, in particular, at the impact on the earnings of the
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
adults who, as children, were affected by the ECEC expansion. The analysis
reveals that most of the gains in earnings accrued to children of low-income
parents, whereas children from the upper part of the income distribution
actually experienced a loss in earnings. In line with the differential effects by
family income, they estimate that universal ECEC provision substantially
increased intergenerational income mobility (Havnes & Mogstad, 2015).
A second example is the evaluation of a Danish ECEC expansion. Datta
Gupta and Simonsen (2010) analyze short- and medium-run effects. They
exploit variation across municipalities in guaranteed access to center-based
ECEC and focus on noncognitive child outcomes. Their results can be
approximately interpreted as the effects of attending ECEC programs 1
year earlier—thus the changes they analyze are not as significant as in the
Norwegian case, which focuses on whether there is ECEC access at all. They
find that, compared to home care, being enrolled in ECEC at age three does
not lead to significant differences in child outcomes at age seven. The same
approach is used for another study focusing on an entire birth cohorts of
ethnic Danish children, enrolled in either center-based ECEC or family day
care at age two. This study shows that center-based ECEC improves grades
in Danish language in the final year of compulsory school (Datta Gupta &
Simonsen, 2015).
The third example relates to research that exploits ECEC policy changes in
Germany. One study uses, as a quasi-experiment, the 1996 introduction of
the German entitlement to an ECEC place for children aged three or older.
The estimates show a positive effect of earlier ECEC entry on children’s
social behavior (Schlotter, 2012). Another study exploits a more recent ECEC
expansion aimed at children younger than three. Drawing on administrative
data for one German state, this study shows that an early ECEC start was
more beneficial for developing socio-emotional maturity for children of less
educated mothers than for children of highly educated mothers (Felfe &
Lalive, 2014). Other research by Müller, Spiess, and Wrohlich (2013) also
finds effects on noncognitive skills, such as socio-emotional behavior and
the locus of control.
However, there is some evidence from quasi-experimental approaches
pointing to negative effects of policies related to universal ECEC—although
these look at all children and not specific subgroups. Pertinent examples
are studies that evaluate the introduction of subsidized, widely accessible
ECEC in the Canadian province of Quebec over the 1997–2000 period. Baker,
Gruber, and Milligan (2008, 2015) find no impact on children’s cognitive
skills but substantial negative effects on children’s noncognitive development in the short run and even in the long run. Kottelenberg and Lehrer
(2014), using the same quasi-experiment, explicitly focus on differences
in the age children gained access to ECEC. Their estimates show that
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
5
children who gained earlier access experience significantly larger negative
impacts on certain outcomes. However, their further subgroup analysis
shows that access to ECEC services at 3 years of age may benefit the most
disadvantaged.
These few examples are in line with other research in showing that, when
they occur, ECEC’s positive effects pertain to children from lower SES. Nevertheless, results differ by various aspects, and less is known about the potential
mechanisms behind the effects. These potential mechanisms are the focus of
the following considerations.
SEVERAL MECHANISMS
ECEC QUALITY
The majority of studies with a quasi-experimental design consider policy
changes resulting in quantitative ECEC expansions. However, little is known
about how these expansions in quantity affected ECEC quality. Yet, as we
know from research mainly outside economics, ECEC quality matters for
child development. Although some economic studies acknowledge the
importance of quality and attempt to describe the changes in quality that
accompanied the policy change considered, this does not allow separating
pure quantity from pure quality effects. Such distinction is especially difficult
to make given the available data. Most datasets used for the aforementioned
quasi-experimental approaches do not contain any information on ECEC
quality. Some more recent economic studies incorporate some information
on ECEC quality, but the indicators used mainly relate to structural quality,
such as staff–child ratios, group sizes, or staff training, which are very crude
measures of ECEC quality from the perspective of other disciplines, such
as educational research. Indeed, scholars of other disciplines would argue
that measures of process or orientation quality are needed to explain ECEC
quality effects on child development. Regardless, economic evidence on the
effects of ECEC quality is scarce, with some of the negative ECEC expansion
effects found possibly related to the fact that ECEC expansion in quantity
was achieved at the expense of ECEC quality.
ALTERNATIVE CARE MODES
Another potential mechanism through which ECEC expansion may affect
child development relates to the counterfactual mode of care. Do expansions
of ECEC programs crowd out informal nonparental care provided by
grandparents, friends, or neighbors? Or does it substitute for maternal care?
More crucially for our question about mechanisms, does the expansion
result in substituting for care of higher, lower, or similar quality? Although
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
some economic studies address this issue, methodological approaches and
available data often do not allow identifying the quality of the alternative
mode of care used. Thus, results indicating positive effects of ECEC for
children of lower SES can often only be interpreted, rather than proven, as
ECEC services may or may not be substituting for care of lesser quality.
While most studies mainly address direct effects of ECEC expansions on
child development, indirect effects might also occur as a result of changes
in parental, mainly maternal, outcomes. Two especially salient outcomes are
maternal employment and maternal well-being.
MATERNAL EMPLOYMENT
There is a vast literature on the direct effects of ECEC expansion on maternal
employment for various European countries. However, the results of these
studies differ: While some find substantial effect of ECEC expansion on the
labor force participation of mothers of particularly young children, others
only find modest effects. Modest effects are usually found when mothers of
older children and more recent cohorts are considered. This can be explained
by the very high coverage rates of ECEC for children 3 years and older. As
almost all children in this age group attend ECEC, a small expansion has
only modest, if any, employment effects. Thus, it is more reasonable to expect
a greater effect on maternal employment when ECEC for children younger
than three is expanded. However, even in this case, it is not clear whether
indirect positive effects of ECEC on child development arise from maternal
employment.
On the one hand, maternal employment increases household income, all
else equal. There is evidence from studies that an increase in household
income, especially at the lower end of the income distribution, can be
beneficial for child development. There are a number of economic studies
showing that increases in households’ permanent income can have particularly positive effects on child development. On the other hand, an increase
in maternal employment might be related to a decrease in maternal time
spent with children. Again, there are several economic studies addressing
this issue. What they mainly show is that the quantity of time is not as
relevant as the quality. Quality time is often measured by the activities
mothers do with their children. Ideally, one would like to measure changes
in maternal activities due to changes in maternal employment, which again
are due to ECEC expansion. However, data allowing this type of measurement are very rare. Thus, it is also difficult to identify the underlying
mechanisms.
Moreover, maternal employment changes might not be solely related to
changes in the availability of ECEC, but also changes in its quality. This
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
7
might occur as mothers are concerned about ECEC quality as it affects
their child’s well-being. Thus, their employment decision might not only be
related to ECEC access per se, but rather to accessing quality ECEC. Although
research on this particular association is particularly scarce, existing studies
suggest that such association might exist. For instance, Schober and Spiess
(2015) show that structural quality indicators matter for the employment
of mothers of children younger than three in East Germany: The higher the
ECEC quality was, the higher was their employment probability. Thus, it
could be that they delayed their labor market reentry due to insufficient
ECEC quality. However, as it is already problematic to separate ECEC
quality effects from ECEC quantity effects, the identification of this specific
mechanism is even more difficult. Overall, it is clear that measuring the
indirect effect of maternal employment on child development is extremely
challenging. However, this does not imply that such effects do not exist,
and any interpretation of “overall” ECEC effects should acknowledge this
point.
MATERNAL WELL-BEING
Another indirect mechanism through which the expansion of ECEC
may affect children relates to changes in maternal well-being. Very few
studies systematically examine this issue and even fewer address the
question of paternal well-being. However, if the expansion directly affects
maternal well-being, this again might affect child development. There
is evidence within economics (and other disciplines) that maternal life
satisfaction has an effect on child development. Higher life satisfaction,
for instance, is associated with more stable socio-emotional behavior of
children (e.g., Berger & Spiess, 2011). In addition, there is some evidence
that ECEC expansions affect maternal well-being. A new German study,
for instance, shows that, in particular, the increase in full-time ECEC
services for preschoolers improved maternal well-being (Schober & Stahl,
2016). More empirical evidence on this association is needed, but the
underlying problem is, once again, a lack of suitable data that allows this
type of ECEC evaluation. However, if different ECEC expansion mechanisms are considered, changes in maternal well-being should also be
considered.
In sum, economic studies show that ECEC expansions, irrespective of the
underlying mechanism, are mainly beneficial for children from low SES, if we
can measure positive effects at all. This is true although we focus on universal
approaches that, in principle, do not target specific groups. This raises the
question as to whether the children who benefit most are covered by such
programs.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
DIFFERENCES BY SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND
To answer this question, ECEC attendance for two groups of children is
described: the group of children younger than three, and the group of
children three and older but not yet in school. This distinction is necessary
because in most European countries the ECEC systems are different for the
two age groups.
CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN THREE
In recent years, the attendance rates of children younger than three has
increased in many European countries with universal ECEC services. In
2014, average attendance in some form of ECEC across EU countries was
approximately 35% among children younger than three. However, there
are differences across countries. The increases are particularly pronounced
in Germany (18.7 percentage points from 2006 to 2014), but they have also
been considerable in the same period at around 10 to 12 percentage points
in other mid- or northern-European countries (OECD, 2017).
However, in most European countries, very young children are more
likely to attend any form of ECEC if they come from relatively advantaged
socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, in many European countries,
attendance rates for children younger than three increase with household
income. In France and Ireland, for example, attendance rates for children
from low-income families are 19% and 11%, respectively, which are significantly lower than those of children from high-income families (81% and
55%). Similarly, in a number of European countries, children are also more
likely to attend ECEC if their mother attained tertiary education. In Austria,
for example, the attendance rate for children with a mother who attained tertiary education is 31%, 20 percentage points higher than the rate for children
whose mother has not attained tertiary education (11%) (OECD, 2017).
In Germany, attendance rates also differ by income and education. However, detailed analysis shows that these associations are partly explained
by maternal employment status. Until 2013, employed mothers, mothers
in education, and single mothers were given priority in accessing highly
rationed ECEC places for children younger than three. Thus, once the group
of employed and nonemployed mothers is analyzed separately, the association with education disappears; while, at least for West Germany, the
association with income remains, with the probability of attending any form
of ECEC increasing with household income. Remarkable is the result that
migrant children have a much lower probability of attending ECEC than
other children, even after controlling for a number of socioeconomic factors.
This result is especially strong if both parents have a migration background
(e.g., Schober & Spiess, 2013).
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
9
One might expect that the expansion of ECEC services by making more
places available would reduce differences in attendance rates by SES.
Germany is a particularly interesting country to study this question. Since
2005, there has been significant growth in the public funding of ECEC
services and a steep increase in availability. In addition, since 2013, all
children 1 year or older are entitled to ECEC. Nevertheless, recent research
shows that not all SES groups benefited from the German expansion in
the same way. Differences in the attendance rates by SES even increased.
Children without migration background, children from non-poor families,
and those with higher educated parents had relatively higher increases in
the attendance probability than other groups (Stahl & Schober, 2017). Thus,
the groups that, in principle, would benefit the most are those with the
lowest relative increase in attendance. Why might that be the case?
REASONS FOR NON-ATTENDANCE
Systematic in-depth research on the reasons for relatively lower attendance rates among children from lower socioeconomic background in
universal ECEC systems, however, is scarce. Demand- and supply-side
factors should be discussed. On the demand side, a number of factors
could be at work. Different groups might have different preferences for
ECEC services. For example, poor families may have educational and
childcare preferences for their children that are different from those of
better-off families. For cultural and other reasons, the same could be true
for parents with a migration background. If preferences were the reason
for not attending, an increase in the number of places available with no
other change would not result in higher attendance rates. Further reasons
might apply, including supply-side reasons. High costs for ECEC services
could be one aspect, in particular for low-income households. This cannot
be ruled out, per se, since economic studies show that the demand for ECEC
depends on the “price” of these services. However, in some countries, such
as Germany, income-dependent parents’ fees are the norm in most regions.
In cases of hardship, the fees are often waived or paid by other public
agencies.
Another reason for non-attendance might be insufficient supply in a
context of high parental demand; then parents are “rationed.” This might
be due to a general lack of slots, or it might be specific for particular
groups that are not prioritized. Alternatively, specific aspects of a particular supply might not match the demands of parents, such as opening
hours or commuting time to ECEC centers. Moreover, economic theory
suggests that providers may engage in indirect or direct discrimination by
prioritizing, for example, children from higher income families over other
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
groups. Such behavior would be economically rational, all else equal, if
the funding of ECEC centers were strongly linked to parental income. But
since many ECEC systems in continental Europe are highly subsidized,
this kind of discrimination is unlikely to be the sole explanation. Overall,
if supply-side reasons dominate, an expansion of ECEC services in general
or for particular groups would increase the attendance rates of children
whose parents actually demand ECEC services. However, there is little
systematic empirical research on these different reasons and, thus, still much
to learn.
CHILDREN FROM 3 YEARS TO COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE
Among older children, aged three and older, attendance rates do not differ
by SES, as under a universal ECEC system the majority of children in this age
group attend some form of ECEC. In the majority of European countries, over
85% of children aged three to five are enrolled in ECEC programs, although
there is some variation across countries, with Belgium, Germany, and France
having attendance rates around or above 98% (OECD, 2017). For this age
group, other differences might apply. These are differences that often also
apply to the younger age group and, thus, come on top to the described SES
differences in attendance rates.
OTHER DIFFERENCES BY SES
Beside questions about attendance as a binary variable, the following other
aspects of attendance might occur: Once children attend ECEC services, the
questions of ECEC intensity (daily and weekly duration) and, more importantly, ECEC quality arise. Are there differences by SES with respect to the
intensity and quality of care?
While there is substantial evidence that better ECEC quality is beneficial
for child development, the evidence on the effects of intensity of care is
not as clear. The “dose effects” depend on several factors, such as the age
of the child, the quality of the alternative care mode, and the considered
development measure. Effects differ if cognitive or noncognitive measures
are analyzed. Nevertheless, there is empirical evidence that intensity differs
by SES. In Germany, for instance, children of single parents, children with
migration background, children with employed mothers, and those of
higher income have a higher probability of attending ECEC full time than
do other groups (Schober & Spiess, 2013). In particular, given the lack of
clear evidence on the effects of full-time or half-time ECEC in a universal
system, it is not possible to conclude how these differences translate into
differences in child development.
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
11
There is further systematic research, at least on the descriptive level, about
SES differences in the level of ECEC quality, although only a few systematic studies use representative data. This research shows that children with a
migration background or those from households with lower income have a
higher probability of being in ECEC of lower quality than their peers (Stahl,
Schober, & Spiess, 2017). However, the observed differences in Germany and
other countries with universal ECEC approaches are much smaller than in
other countries, such as the United States with not such universal systems
and a much higher variety in ECEC quality.
Less is known about the reasons underlying SES differences in ECEC quality. On one hand, parents might have different preferences for ECEC quality
or parents might be differently informed about ECEC quality and its effects
on child development. On the other hand, ECEC quality might depend on the
context or the neighborhood of the ECEC setting. More systematic research
on testing these different drivers is needed to further our understanding of
SES differences in ECEC intensity and quality.
CONCLUSION
Although economists have studied ECEC services for many years mainly
in a context of targeted systems, newer research examines the effects of
universally provided ECEC services. Using quasi-experimental models, this
research shows that ECEC expansion can have short-, mid- and long-term
effects depending on the various factors of the expansion. However, the
research on the mechanisms behind these effects is still small. Thus, it
is a particular challenge for future research to learn more about these
mechanisms. However, more suitable data are needed to accomplish this.
In particular, data covering information on ECEC quality, the quality of
alternative care modes, and parental well-being are needed. A better understanding of the mechanisms would also be helpful from a policy perspective,
as this information is essential for designing policies that effectively and
efficiently reach all children.
The available research shows that, if positive ECEC effects on child development are found, they mainly concern children from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds. Thus, the question is whether this group of children attends
ECEC. This is not the case for children younger than three—here differences
in attendance by SES can be observed. Further evidence also suggests SES
differences in the choices of ECEC quality. These patterns emerge for all age
groups. If there is a systematic selection into ECEC of varying quality, this
would be an indication of unequal educational opportunities in universal
systems. Yet more systematic research is needed, in particular with respect
to quality. Finally, it is important to learn more about the mechanisms why
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the attendance rates of children from lower socioeconomic background are
lower than of those of their more advantaged peers and in particular why we
observe SES differences in ECEC quality. Such understanding would help to
better design policies aimed at providing high quality ECEC to all children.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Ludovica Gambaro for very helpful comments on the first draft of
this essay. I also thank Adam Lederer for very helpful editorial assistance.
REFERENCES
Baker, M., Gruber, J., & Milligan, K. (2008). Universal child care, maternal labour
supply, and family well-being. Journal of Political Economy, 116(4), 709–745.
Baker, M., Gruber, J., & Milligan, K. (2015). Non-cognitive deficits and young adult outcomes. The long-run impacts of a universal child care program. NBER Working Paper
21571.
Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333,
975–978.
Berger, E., & Spiess, C. K. (2011). Maternal life satisfaction and child outcomes: Are
they related? Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 142–158.
Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 97, 31–47.
Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. V. (2006). Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation. In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook
of the economics of education (Vol. 1, Ch. 12). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North
Holland.
Datta Gupta, N., & Simonsen, M. (2010). Non-cognitive child outcomes and universal
high quality child care. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 30–43.
Datta Gupta, N., & Simonsen, M. (2015). Academic performance and type of early childhood care. IZA Discussion Papers 9045.
Felfe, C., & Lalive, R. (2014). Does early child care help or hurt children’s development?
IZA Discussion Paper 8484.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2011). No child left behind: Subsidized child care and
children’s lon-rung outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2),
97–129.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2015). Is universal child care leveling the playing field?
Journal of Public Economics, 127(2015), 100–114.
Kottelenberg, M. J., & Lehrer, S. F. (2014). Do the perils of universal childcare depend
on the child‘s age? CESifo Economic Studies, 60(2), 338–365.
Müller, K.-U., Spiess, C. K., & Wrohlich, K. (2013). Rechtsanspruch auf Kitaplatz ab
zweitem Lebensjahr: Erwerbsbeteiligung von Müttern wird steigen und Kinder
können in ihrer Entwicklung profitieren. DIW Wochenbericht, 32, 3–12.
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
13
OECD. (2017). OECD family data base. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.
htm (Downloads: April 2017).
Schlotter, M. (2012). Educational Production in Preschools and Schools Microeconometric
Evidence from Germany (Vol. 41). Munich, Germany: ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung.
Schober, P. S., & Spiess, C. K. (2013). Early childhood education activities and care
arrangements of disadvantaged children in Germany. Child Indicators Research, 6,
709–735.
Schober, P. S., & Spiess, C. K. (2015). Local day-care quality and maternal employment: Evidence from East and West Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
77(3), 712–729.
Schober, P. S., & Stahl, J. F. (2016). Expansion of full-day childcare and subjective
well-being of mothers: Interdependencies with culture and resources. European
Sociological Review, 32(5), 593–606.
Stahl, J. F., & Schober, P. S. (2017). Convergence or divergence? Educational discrepancies in work-care arrangements of mothers with young children in Germany.
Work, Employment & Society (forthcoming).
Stahl, J. F., Schober, P. S., & Spiess, C. K. (2017). Parental socio-economic status and childcare quality: Early inequalities in educational opportunity? Berlin: Mimeo.
C. KATHARINA SPIESS SHORT BIOGRAPHY
C. Katharina Spiess is the Head of the Department of Education and Family at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) since 2012
and Chair of Educational and Family Economics at Freie Universität Berlin
since 2006. She studied economics and political science at the University of
Mannheim, earned her doctorate from Ruhr-Universität Bochum and her
Habilitation from Technische Universität Berlin. Prior to joining DIW Berlin
and the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) in 2000, she worked
at Prognos AG, Basel and Berlin. She has been a Guest Researcher at the
Max-Planck-Institute for Human Development, VU University Amsterdam,
Syracuse University, Cornell University, and the University of Washington,
among others. Dr Spiess is a member of several advisory boards and expert
groups, including the scientific advisory board to the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs and the scientific advisory board for the joint agreement between the federal level and the states to assess the performance of
the German education system.
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Economics of Early Education (Economics), W. Steven Barnett
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
Heuristic Decision Making (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and
Nicholas J. D’Amico
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
The Roots of Moral Reasoning and Behavior in Infants (Psychology), J. Kiley
Hamlin and Conor M. Steckler
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky
Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller
A Bio-Social-Cultural Approach to Early Cognitive Development: Entering
the Community of Minds (Psychology), Katherine Nelson
Schooling, Learning, and the Life Course (Education), Aaron M. Pallas
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Education in an Open Informational World (Education), Marlene Scardamalia
and Carl Bereiter
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey
M. Stonecash
Institutional Contexts for Socioeconomic Effects on Schooling Outcomes
(Sociology), Herman G. van de Werfhorst
-
Early Childhood Education and Care
Services and Child Development:
Economic Perspectives for Universal
Approaches
C. KATHARINA SPIESS
Abstract
This essay analyses universal early childhood education and care (ECEC) services
from an economic perspective focusing on universal ECEC approaches. First,
it examines the effectiveness of ECEC expansions, reviewing research using
quasi-experimental approaches. It then discusses the possible mechanisms underlying the measured effects. These are related to both direct effects from ECEC services
on children and indirect ones occurring via maternal employment and well-being.
When ECEC-positive effects are detected, they mostly pertain to children from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This raises the question as to whether this group
of children is reached by universal ECEC services. The second part of the essay
focuses on this issue, describing differences in ECEC attendance by socioeconomic
background, distinguishing between different age groups and different aspects of
ECEC attendance. The challenges for future research are summarized at the end.
INTRODUCTION
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are receiving ever
greater attention. Increasingly, scholars of multiple disciplines acknowledge
that the provision of good ECEC services is of major importance for child
development. Education economists emphasize that investments in early
life have particularly high returns, being much higher than investments at
later ages. In particular, such considerations are linked to the work of the
Nobel Prize winner James Heckman and his coauthors. Based on their skill
formation model, they emphasize the complementarity of skills, predicting
that higher levels of skills at an earlier stage beget further development of
skills at a later stage (Cunha & Heckman, 2007; Cunha, Heckman, Lochner,
& Masterov, 2006). Thus, investments in ECEC services might be efficient
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
if they effectively increase children’s skills at an early stage. For a long
time, these effects were mainly analyzed by scholars from pedagogics
and developmental psychology. Recently, however, the effects of ECEC
attendance on child development are also studied by an increasing number
of economists.
Overall, systematic economic research on the effects of ECEC on children
has originated mainly in the American context. Economic research in this
field began by evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of particular high
quality intervention programs targeting disadvantaged children. Prominent examples include the still ongoing evaluation of the Perry Preschool
Program, one of the Abecedarian Programs, and the Chicago Child Parent
Program (e.g., Barnett, 2011). While the first two examples are small-scale
interventions, the last one involves more than 1000 children over several
years. Other studies evaluated larger programs, such as Head Start (a federal
program for low-income families). As most of this research is U.S.-related,
it focuses on a publicly funded ECEC system that, until quite recently,
was mainly designed to serve disadvantaged children. Thus, few studies
examine the effects of universal ECEC provision that is prevalent in Europe.
While the effects of the well-known high quality intervention studies show
relatively large effects on child development, even in the long run, such as
reductions in grade repetition, improved rates of high school completion,
higher wages, and so on, the effects are much smaller once it comes to larger
programs that offer ECEC at a much lower quality.
In contrast to the United States, most European countries, including Germany, have universal ECEC systems for children aged three or older, with
generally no targeted programs. In principle, universal ECEC services seek
to reach all children in a specific age group. For many years, there has been
a dearth of research on the effectiveness of such universal programs.
Independent of a universal or target approach, ECEC services also have
effects that relate to their care function, rather than their educational one.
ECEC services allow parents, in particular mothers, to combine family
responsibilities and formal employment. This care aspect may also affect
child development, albeit indirectly. A larger family income may positively
impact children’s well-being by increasing material well-being or indirectly
via improved parental well-being. Moreover, ECEC services, per se, can
increase parental well-being, as they facilitate the combination of work and
family life. Such changes in well-being might also affect child development.
Yet, such effects may arise from some ECEC but not from others.
The focus of this essay is on universal ECEC systems, as they are typical
of most European countries. Taking an economic perspective, this essay
describes some of the recent research in this area and discusses caveats
that might be addressed in future research. In the first part, I summarize
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
3
some recent evaluation studies on universal ECEC programs—focusing
on specific examples. This is followed by a discussion of the mechanisms
behind potential ECEC effects on child development. The second part
describes the coverage of such programs—taking Germany as an example:
Are there differences by socioeconomic status (SES) in the attendance of such
programs? If so, what are the underlying reasons? I conclude by highlighting
the challenges for future research.
EFFECTIVENESS OF UNIVERSAL PROGRAMS—SOME EXAMPLES
An increasing number of economic studies evaluate the effectiveness of universal programs on child development. One reason behind this trend is that
more and better micro data are available to researchers. In particular, the
increasing availability of longitudinal survey datasets including child development measures and of administrative datasets has allowed researchers to
analyze mid- or long-term outcomes of children.
Moreover, while much of the previous research mainly estimates associations, substantial improvements have been made in the methods used to
identify the causal effects of ECEC services on child development. Primarily
using quasi-experimental approaches, recent studies claim to measure true
ECEC effects by taking into account that many observable and, in particular,
unobservable factors influence the association between ECEC programs and
child development. These studies exploit ECEC policy changes to identify
the effects of ECEC services on child development in the short, middle, and
long runs. From an economic perspective, long-term effects are of particular
interest. If ECEC programs affect educational attainment, employment, and
health outcomes, as well as family formation processes, it is not only the
individual child who benefits but also society and the economy as a whole.
If ECEC programs, for example, reduce high school dropout rates, society
benefits from reduced expenditures on remedial services and increased tax
revenues generated by higher level of education and, in turn, of higher
earnings.
A first example of such evaluation studies analyzes the long-term effects
of the expansion, since 1975, of universal day care in Norway. Havnes
and Mogstad (2011) use administrative micro data covering almost the
entire Norwegian population to investigate this large-scale expansion of
subsidized child care. Their results show that subsidized ECEC had strong
positive effects on children’s educational attainment also reducing children’s
later welfare dependency. Subsample analyses indicate that children of low
educated mothers benefit the most from the increased availability of ECEC
services. A more recent study of the same ECEC reform examines the longer
term effect by looking, in particular, at the impact on the earnings of the
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
adults who, as children, were affected by the ECEC expansion. The analysis
reveals that most of the gains in earnings accrued to children of low-income
parents, whereas children from the upper part of the income distribution
actually experienced a loss in earnings. In line with the differential effects by
family income, they estimate that universal ECEC provision substantially
increased intergenerational income mobility (Havnes & Mogstad, 2015).
A second example is the evaluation of a Danish ECEC expansion. Datta
Gupta and Simonsen (2010) analyze short- and medium-run effects. They
exploit variation across municipalities in guaranteed access to center-based
ECEC and focus on noncognitive child outcomes. Their results can be
approximately interpreted as the effects of attending ECEC programs 1
year earlier—thus the changes they analyze are not as significant as in the
Norwegian case, which focuses on whether there is ECEC access at all. They
find that, compared to home care, being enrolled in ECEC at age three does
not lead to significant differences in child outcomes at age seven. The same
approach is used for another study focusing on an entire birth cohorts of
ethnic Danish children, enrolled in either center-based ECEC or family day
care at age two. This study shows that center-based ECEC improves grades
in Danish language in the final year of compulsory school (Datta Gupta &
Simonsen, 2015).
The third example relates to research that exploits ECEC policy changes in
Germany. One study uses, as a quasi-experiment, the 1996 introduction of
the German entitlement to an ECEC place for children aged three or older.
The estimates show a positive effect of earlier ECEC entry on children’s
social behavior (Schlotter, 2012). Another study exploits a more recent ECEC
expansion aimed at children younger than three. Drawing on administrative
data for one German state, this study shows that an early ECEC start was
more beneficial for developing socio-emotional maturity for children of less
educated mothers than for children of highly educated mothers (Felfe &
Lalive, 2014). Other research by Müller, Spiess, and Wrohlich (2013) also
finds effects on noncognitive skills, such as socio-emotional behavior and
the locus of control.
However, there is some evidence from quasi-experimental approaches
pointing to negative effects of policies related to universal ECEC—although
these look at all children and not specific subgroups. Pertinent examples
are studies that evaluate the introduction of subsidized, widely accessible
ECEC in the Canadian province of Quebec over the 1997–2000 period. Baker,
Gruber, and Milligan (2008, 2015) find no impact on children’s cognitive
skills but substantial negative effects on children’s noncognitive development in the short run and even in the long run. Kottelenberg and Lehrer
(2014), using the same quasi-experiment, explicitly focus on differences
in the age children gained access to ECEC. Their estimates show that
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
5
children who gained earlier access experience significantly larger negative
impacts on certain outcomes. However, their further subgroup analysis
shows that access to ECEC services at 3 years of age may benefit the most
disadvantaged.
These few examples are in line with other research in showing that, when
they occur, ECEC’s positive effects pertain to children from lower SES. Nevertheless, results differ by various aspects, and less is known about the potential
mechanisms behind the effects. These potential mechanisms are the focus of
the following considerations.
SEVERAL MECHANISMS
ECEC QUALITY
The majority of studies with a quasi-experimental design consider policy
changes resulting in quantitative ECEC expansions. However, little is known
about how these expansions in quantity affected ECEC quality. Yet, as we
know from research mainly outside economics, ECEC quality matters for
child development. Although some economic studies acknowledge the
importance of quality and attempt to describe the changes in quality that
accompanied the policy change considered, this does not allow separating
pure quantity from pure quality effects. Such distinction is especially difficult
to make given the available data. Most datasets used for the aforementioned
quasi-experimental approaches do not contain any information on ECEC
quality. Some more recent economic studies incorporate some information
on ECEC quality, but the indicators used mainly relate to structural quality,
such as staff–child ratios, group sizes, or staff training, which are very crude
measures of ECEC quality from the perspective of other disciplines, such
as educational research. Indeed, scholars of other disciplines would argue
that measures of process or orientation quality are needed to explain ECEC
quality effects on child development. Regardless, economic evidence on the
effects of ECEC quality is scarce, with some of the negative ECEC expansion
effects found possibly related to the fact that ECEC expansion in quantity
was achieved at the expense of ECEC quality.
ALTERNATIVE CARE MODES
Another potential mechanism through which ECEC expansion may affect
child development relates to the counterfactual mode of care. Do expansions
of ECEC programs crowd out informal nonparental care provided by
grandparents, friends, or neighbors? Or does it substitute for maternal care?
More crucially for our question about mechanisms, does the expansion
result in substituting for care of higher, lower, or similar quality? Although
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
some economic studies address this issue, methodological approaches and
available data often do not allow identifying the quality of the alternative
mode of care used. Thus, results indicating positive effects of ECEC for
children of lower SES can often only be interpreted, rather than proven, as
ECEC services may or may not be substituting for care of lesser quality.
While most studies mainly address direct effects of ECEC expansions on
child development, indirect effects might also occur as a result of changes
in parental, mainly maternal, outcomes. Two especially salient outcomes are
maternal employment and maternal well-being.
MATERNAL EMPLOYMENT
There is a vast literature on the direct effects of ECEC expansion on maternal
employment for various European countries. However, the results of these
studies differ: While some find substantial effect of ECEC expansion on the
labor force participation of mothers of particularly young children, others
only find modest effects. Modest effects are usually found when mothers of
older children and more recent cohorts are considered. This can be explained
by the very high coverage rates of ECEC for children 3 years and older. As
almost all children in this age group attend ECEC, a small expansion has
only modest, if any, employment effects. Thus, it is more reasonable to expect
a greater effect on maternal employment when ECEC for children younger
than three is expanded. However, even in this case, it is not clear whether
indirect positive effects of ECEC on child development arise from maternal
employment.
On the one hand, maternal employment increases household income, all
else equal. There is evidence from studies that an increase in household
income, especially at the lower end of the income distribution, can be
beneficial for child development. There are a number of economic studies
showing that increases in households’ permanent income can have particularly positive effects on child development. On the other hand, an increase
in maternal employment might be related to a decrease in maternal time
spent with children. Again, there are several economic studies addressing
this issue. What they mainly show is that the quantity of time is not as
relevant as the quality. Quality time is often measured by the activities
mothers do with their children. Ideally, one would like to measure changes
in maternal activities due to changes in maternal employment, which again
are due to ECEC expansion. However, data allowing this type of measurement are very rare. Thus, it is also difficult to identify the underlying
mechanisms.
Moreover, maternal employment changes might not be solely related to
changes in the availability of ECEC, but also changes in its quality. This
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
7
might occur as mothers are concerned about ECEC quality as it affects
their child’s well-being. Thus, their employment decision might not only be
related to ECEC access per se, but rather to accessing quality ECEC. Although
research on this particular association is particularly scarce, existing studies
suggest that such association might exist. For instance, Schober and Spiess
(2015) show that structural quality indicators matter for the employment
of mothers of children younger than three in East Germany: The higher the
ECEC quality was, the higher was their employment probability. Thus, it
could be that they delayed their labor market reentry due to insufficient
ECEC quality. However, as it is already problematic to separate ECEC
quality effects from ECEC quantity effects, the identification of this specific
mechanism is even more difficult. Overall, it is clear that measuring the
indirect effect of maternal employment on child development is extremely
challenging. However, this does not imply that such effects do not exist,
and any interpretation of “overall” ECEC effects should acknowledge this
point.
MATERNAL WELL-BEING
Another indirect mechanism through which the expansion of ECEC
may affect children relates to changes in maternal well-being. Very few
studies systematically examine this issue and even fewer address the
question of paternal well-being. However, if the expansion directly affects
maternal well-being, this again might affect child development. There
is evidence within economics (and other disciplines) that maternal life
satisfaction has an effect on child development. Higher life satisfaction,
for instance, is associated with more stable socio-emotional behavior of
children (e.g., Berger & Spiess, 2011). In addition, there is some evidence
that ECEC expansions affect maternal well-being. A new German study,
for instance, shows that, in particular, the increase in full-time ECEC
services for preschoolers improved maternal well-being (Schober & Stahl,
2016). More empirical evidence on this association is needed, but the
underlying problem is, once again, a lack of suitable data that allows this
type of ECEC evaluation. However, if different ECEC expansion mechanisms are considered, changes in maternal well-being should also be
considered.
In sum, economic studies show that ECEC expansions, irrespective of the
underlying mechanism, are mainly beneficial for children from low SES, if we
can measure positive effects at all. This is true although we focus on universal
approaches that, in principle, do not target specific groups. This raises the
question as to whether the children who benefit most are covered by such
programs.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
DIFFERENCES BY SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND
To answer this question, ECEC attendance for two groups of children is
described: the group of children younger than three, and the group of
children three and older but not yet in school. This distinction is necessary
because in most European countries the ECEC systems are different for the
two age groups.
CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN THREE
In recent years, the attendance rates of children younger than three has
increased in many European countries with universal ECEC services. In
2014, average attendance in some form of ECEC across EU countries was
approximately 35% among children younger than three. However, there
are differences across countries. The increases are particularly pronounced
in Germany (18.7 percentage points from 2006 to 2014), but they have also
been considerable in the same period at around 10 to 12 percentage points
in other mid- or northern-European countries (OECD, 2017).
However, in most European countries, very young children are more
likely to attend any form of ECEC if they come from relatively advantaged
socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, in many European countries,
attendance rates for children younger than three increase with household
income. In France and Ireland, for example, attendance rates for children
from low-income families are 19% and 11%, respectively, which are significantly lower than those of children from high-income families (81% and
55%). Similarly, in a number of European countries, children are also more
likely to attend ECEC if their mother attained tertiary education. In Austria,
for example, the attendance rate for children with a mother who attained tertiary education is 31%, 20 percentage points higher than the rate for children
whose mother has not attained tertiary education (11%) (OECD, 2017).
In Germany, attendance rates also differ by income and education. However, detailed analysis shows that these associations are partly explained
by maternal employment status. Until 2013, employed mothers, mothers
in education, and single mothers were given priority in accessing highly
rationed ECEC places for children younger than three. Thus, once the group
of employed and nonemployed mothers is analyzed separately, the association with education disappears; while, at least for West Germany, the
association with income remains, with the probability of attending any form
of ECEC increasing with household income. Remarkable is the result that
migrant children have a much lower probability of attending ECEC than
other children, even after controlling for a number of socioeconomic factors.
This result is especially strong if both parents have a migration background
(e.g., Schober & Spiess, 2013).
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
9
One might expect that the expansion of ECEC services by making more
places available would reduce differences in attendance rates by SES.
Germany is a particularly interesting country to study this question. Since
2005, there has been significant growth in the public funding of ECEC
services and a steep increase in availability. In addition, since 2013, all
children 1 year or older are entitled to ECEC. Nevertheless, recent research
shows that not all SES groups benefited from the German expansion in
the same way. Differences in the attendance rates by SES even increased.
Children without migration background, children from non-poor families,
and those with higher educated parents had relatively higher increases in
the attendance probability than other groups (Stahl & Schober, 2017). Thus,
the groups that, in principle, would benefit the most are those with the
lowest relative increase in attendance. Why might that be the case?
REASONS FOR NON-ATTENDANCE
Systematic in-depth research on the reasons for relatively lower attendance rates among children from lower socioeconomic background in
universal ECEC systems, however, is scarce. Demand- and supply-side
factors should be discussed. On the demand side, a number of factors
could be at work. Different groups might have different preferences for
ECEC services. For example, poor families may have educational and
childcare preferences for their children that are different from those of
better-off families. For cultural and other reasons, the same could be true
for parents with a migration background. If preferences were the reason
for not attending, an increase in the number of places available with no
other change would not result in higher attendance rates. Further reasons
might apply, including supply-side reasons. High costs for ECEC services
could be one aspect, in particular for low-income households. This cannot
be ruled out, per se, since economic studies show that the demand for ECEC
depends on the “price” of these services. However, in some countries, such
as Germany, income-dependent parents’ fees are the norm in most regions.
In cases of hardship, the fees are often waived or paid by other public
agencies.
Another reason for non-attendance might be insufficient supply in a
context of high parental demand; then parents are “rationed.” This might
be due to a general lack of slots, or it might be specific for particular
groups that are not prioritized. Alternatively, specific aspects of a particular supply might not match the demands of parents, such as opening
hours or commuting time to ECEC centers. Moreover, economic theory
suggests that providers may engage in indirect or direct discrimination by
prioritizing, for example, children from higher income families over other
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
groups. Such behavior would be economically rational, all else equal, if
the funding of ECEC centers were strongly linked to parental income. But
since many ECEC systems in continental Europe are highly subsidized,
this kind of discrimination is unlikely to be the sole explanation. Overall,
if supply-side reasons dominate, an expansion of ECEC services in general
or for particular groups would increase the attendance rates of children
whose parents actually demand ECEC services. However, there is little
systematic empirical research on these different reasons and, thus, still much
to learn.
CHILDREN FROM 3 YEARS TO COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE
Among older children, aged three and older, attendance rates do not differ
by SES, as under a universal ECEC system the majority of children in this age
group attend some form of ECEC. In the majority of European countries, over
85% of children aged three to five are enrolled in ECEC programs, although
there is some variation across countries, with Belgium, Germany, and France
having attendance rates around or above 98% (OECD, 2017). For this age
group, other differences might apply. These are differences that often also
apply to the younger age group and, thus, come on top to the described SES
differences in attendance rates.
OTHER DIFFERENCES BY SES
Beside questions about attendance as a binary variable, the following other
aspects of attendance might occur: Once children attend ECEC services, the
questions of ECEC intensity (daily and weekly duration) and, more importantly, ECEC quality arise. Are there differences by SES with respect to the
intensity and quality of care?
While there is substantial evidence that better ECEC quality is beneficial
for child development, the evidence on the effects of intensity of care is
not as clear. The “dose effects” depend on several factors, such as the age
of the child, the quality of the alternative care mode, and the considered
development measure. Effects differ if cognitive or noncognitive measures
are analyzed. Nevertheless, there is empirical evidence that intensity differs
by SES. In Germany, for instance, children of single parents, children with
migration background, children with employed mothers, and those of
higher income have a higher probability of attending ECEC full time than
do other groups (Schober & Spiess, 2013). In particular, given the lack of
clear evidence on the effects of full-time or half-time ECEC in a universal
system, it is not possible to conclude how these differences translate into
differences in child development.
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
11
There is further systematic research, at least on the descriptive level, about
SES differences in the level of ECEC quality, although only a few systematic studies use representative data. This research shows that children with a
migration background or those from households with lower income have a
higher probability of being in ECEC of lower quality than their peers (Stahl,
Schober, & Spiess, 2017). However, the observed differences in Germany and
other countries with universal ECEC approaches are much smaller than in
other countries, such as the United States with not such universal systems
and a much higher variety in ECEC quality.
Less is known about the reasons underlying SES differences in ECEC quality. On one hand, parents might have different preferences for ECEC quality
or parents might be differently informed about ECEC quality and its effects
on child development. On the other hand, ECEC quality might depend on the
context or the neighborhood of the ECEC setting. More systematic research
on testing these different drivers is needed to further our understanding of
SES differences in ECEC intensity and quality.
CONCLUSION
Although economists have studied ECEC services for many years mainly
in a context of targeted systems, newer research examines the effects of
universally provided ECEC services. Using quasi-experimental models, this
research shows that ECEC expansion can have short-, mid- and long-term
effects depending on the various factors of the expansion. However, the
research on the mechanisms behind these effects is still small. Thus, it
is a particular challenge for future research to learn more about these
mechanisms. However, more suitable data are needed to accomplish this.
In particular, data covering information on ECEC quality, the quality of
alternative care modes, and parental well-being are needed. A better understanding of the mechanisms would also be helpful from a policy perspective,
as this information is essential for designing policies that effectively and
efficiently reach all children.
The available research shows that, if positive ECEC effects on child development are found, they mainly concern children from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds. Thus, the question is whether this group of children attends
ECEC. This is not the case for children younger than three—here differences
in attendance by SES can be observed. Further evidence also suggests SES
differences in the choices of ECEC quality. These patterns emerge for all age
groups. If there is a systematic selection into ECEC of varying quality, this
would be an indication of unequal educational opportunities in universal
systems. Yet more systematic research is needed, in particular with respect
to quality. Finally, it is important to learn more about the mechanisms why
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the attendance rates of children from lower socioeconomic background are
lower than of those of their more advantaged peers and in particular why we
observe SES differences in ECEC quality. Such understanding would help to
better design policies aimed at providing high quality ECEC to all children.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Ludovica Gambaro for very helpful comments on the first draft of
this essay. I also thank Adam Lederer for very helpful editorial assistance.
REFERENCES
Baker, M., Gruber, J., & Milligan, K. (2008). Universal child care, maternal labour
supply, and family well-being. Journal of Political Economy, 116(4), 709–745.
Baker, M., Gruber, J., & Milligan, K. (2015). Non-cognitive deficits and young adult outcomes. The long-run impacts of a universal child care program. NBER Working Paper
21571.
Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333,
975–978.
Berger, E., & Spiess, C. K. (2011). Maternal life satisfaction and child outcomes: Are
they related? Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 142–158.
Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 97, 31–47.
Cunha, F., Heckman, J. J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. V. (2006). Interpreting the evidence on life cycle skill formation. In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook
of the economics of education (Vol. 1, Ch. 12). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North
Holland.
Datta Gupta, N., & Simonsen, M. (2010). Non-cognitive child outcomes and universal
high quality child care. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 30–43.
Datta Gupta, N., & Simonsen, M. (2015). Academic performance and type of early childhood care. IZA Discussion Papers 9045.
Felfe, C., & Lalive, R. (2014). Does early child care help or hurt children’s development?
IZA Discussion Paper 8484.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2011). No child left behind: Subsidized child care and
children’s lon-rung outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2),
97–129.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2015). Is universal child care leveling the playing field?
Journal of Public Economics, 127(2015), 100–114.
Kottelenberg, M. J., & Lehrer, S. F. (2014). Do the perils of universal childcare depend
on the child‘s age? CESifo Economic Studies, 60(2), 338–365.
Müller, K.-U., Spiess, C. K., & Wrohlich, K. (2013). Rechtsanspruch auf Kitaplatz ab
zweitem Lebensjahr: Erwerbsbeteiligung von Müttern wird steigen und Kinder
können in ihrer Entwicklung profitieren. DIW Wochenbericht, 32, 3–12.
Universal Early Childhood Education and Care Approaches
13
OECD. (2017). OECD family data base. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.
htm (Downloads: April 2017).
Schlotter, M. (2012). Educational Production in Preschools and Schools Microeconometric
Evidence from Germany (Vol. 41). Munich, Germany: ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung.
Schober, P. S., & Spiess, C. K. (2013). Early childhood education activities and care
arrangements of disadvantaged children in Germany. Child Indicators Research, 6,
709–735.
Schober, P. S., & Spiess, C. K. (2015). Local day-care quality and maternal employment: Evidence from East and West Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
77(3), 712–729.
Schober, P. S., & Stahl, J. F. (2016). Expansion of full-day childcare and subjective
well-being of mothers: Interdependencies with culture and resources. European
Sociological Review, 32(5), 593–606.
Stahl, J. F., & Schober, P. S. (2017). Convergence or divergence? Educational discrepancies in work-care arrangements of mothers with young children in Germany.
Work, Employment & Society (forthcoming).
Stahl, J. F., Schober, P. S., & Spiess, C. K. (2017). Parental socio-economic status and childcare quality: Early inequalities in educational opportunity? Berlin: Mimeo.
C. KATHARINA SPIESS SHORT BIOGRAPHY
C. Katharina Spiess is the Head of the Department of Education and Family at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) since 2012
and Chair of Educational and Family Economics at Freie Universität Berlin
since 2006. She studied economics and political science at the University of
Mannheim, earned her doctorate from Ruhr-Universität Bochum and her
Habilitation from Technische Universität Berlin. Prior to joining DIW Berlin
and the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) in 2000, she worked
at Prognos AG, Basel and Berlin. She has been a Guest Researcher at the
Max-Planck-Institute for Human Development, VU University Amsterdam,
Syracuse University, Cornell University, and the University of Washington,
among others. Dr Spiess is a member of several advisory boards and expert
groups, including the scientific advisory board to the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs and the scientific advisory board for the joint agreement between the federal level and the states to assess the performance of
the German education system.
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Economics of Early Education (Economics), W. Steven Barnett
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
Heuristic Decision Making (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and
Nicholas J. D’Amico
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
The Roots of Moral Reasoning and Behavior in Infants (Psychology), J. Kiley
Hamlin and Conor M. Steckler
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky
Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller
A Bio-Social-Cultural Approach to Early Cognitive Development: Entering
the Community of Minds (Psychology), Katherine Nelson
Schooling, Learning, and the Life Course (Education), Aaron M. Pallas
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Education in an Open Informational World (Education), Marlene Scardamalia
and Carl Bereiter
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey
M. Stonecash
Institutional Contexts for Socioeconomic Effects on Schooling Outcomes
(Sociology), Herman G. van de Werfhorst
