Building an Early Childhood System from its Existing Assets
Earlier this year Capita published a new white paper by policy expert Elliot Haspel in which he proposes “early childhood districts.” Elliot envisions these districts as the counterpart to public school districts for children five and under, but adapted to the early childhood context, and learning from the inequities found in the K-12 system.
In order to help us think more deeply about this novel proposal and to foster its prudent development, we have commissioned several other experts to contribute to a written symposium to critique and to caution, and to make recommendations about where next to take this proposal.
The symposium’s third essay is by Natalie Renew and Karen Tylek. Read previous essays by Patrick T. Brown and Mario Cardona.
There is a great deal to like in Elliot Haspel’s proposal for infrastructure that supports both the providers who educate young children and the families who use these programs. Indeed, Haspel’s early childhood districts share much in common with Home Grown’s concept of a comprehensive network which serves as the connective tissue that joins individual home-based providers to each other and to a system that includes both funding and policy.
We agree with Haspel that providers in such networks would benefit from centrally hired support personnel; access to collegial learning, networking, and growth opportunities; a common substitute pool; network-managed benefits options; and other professional supports. We also agree that families should have “a centralized system for choosing child care that prioritizes parents’ preferences and needs,” including “low-barrier access to financial support” funneled through an efficient and stable governance structure. Investment in this type of infrastructure to support early childhood education is long overdue.
“Instead of building down from a flawed K-12 education system, at the risk of reifying its entrenched inequities, we propose building up from an already existing foundation of child care providers serving American families.”
We also agree with Haspel that we need to move toward a “democratically accountable,” rights based model of child care that ensures access for all children. However, instead of building down from a flawed K-12 education system, at the risk of reifying its entrenched inequities, we propose building up from an already existing foundation of child care providers serving American families. This perspective illuminates a key problem: the vast number of uncompensated caregivers who do this work already are unseen and unheard in system design and implementation. We ask, therefore, How can we publicly fund the assets and actors we already have? How can we strengthen those assets organically by recognizing what infants and toddlers and their families need and want, as well as the providers who they already rely on to meet these needs? This reframing might allow us not only to “learn from” the inequities that are deeply entrenched in the public school district model, but also, eventually, to eliminate them. Our asset-based approach suggests three key next steps for strengthening and funding an enduring and equitable early childhood education infrastructure.
Build on existing networks and services. Some states and communities already have networks (Child Care Resource and Referral agencies, staffed family child care networks, shared service alliances, provider associations) that offer supportive infrastructure for providers. We propose that, rather than building curriculum, instruction, and administration “down” from kindergarten, we connect the dots between the assets we already have to create more comprehensive network hubs that meet the full range of provider and family needs.
Value what parents want, need and choose. As Mario Cardona noted, engaging providers and parents themselves in the design and governance of childcare networks is critical to getting it right. We know, for example, that child care systems and supports are often designed with centers in mind, even though 50 percent of families choose home-based care for their children. These families, and the providers who meet their needs, are seeking care that is culturally responsive, geographically accessible, affordable, and open during non-traditional hours.
“An equitable system would elevate home-based care as a quality option and value its unique ability to meet the myriad needs and desires of families.”
If our goal is to create an equitable system that creates access for all families and affirms the preferences of Black and brown parents and providers, then we should fully fund the pluralist approach that currently exists rather than build on a one-size-fits all system like K-12 school districts. An equitable system would elevate home-based care as a quality option and value its unique ability to meet the myriad needs and desires of families. These unique needs and preferences will vary greatly across many domains from daily meals (can halal, kosher and vegan all be on the menu?) to cloth diapering to other child rearing practices that are personal and nuanced and that many parents currently find in their care providers.
Such a system would also acknowledge that especially for infants and toddlers, family, friend, and neighbor caregivers, and/or caregivers who share the same racial or ethnic identity as the children in their care, advance the reciprocal relationships that nurture children’s curiosity and affirm their identity. We agree with researchers that the color blind definition of quality spotlighted in the famous North Carolina Abecedarian project of the 1970s, where 98 percent of the children and all of the teachers were black, “misses the assets that Black children and families bring to the classroom.” Our systems must connect and support all kinds of providers and families to thrive by preserving and valuing their diversity and distinctiveness, rather than squeezing them all into a single mold or definition of quality.
Compensate providers equitably. Another huge asset of early education, in contrast to K-12 education where the workforce is mostly white, is its racially diverse and deeply committed workforce. Data from the Department of Education show that nationwide only 18% of public school teachers are people of color. But 37% of workers in child care centers and listed home-based child care providers identify as people of color, and this number increases to 49% people of color when looking at unlisted home-based providers. Consider that K-12 teachers who worked through the pandemic were paid whether or not their students showed up on the Zoom screen, whether or not their school was shut down for an extra week or three of spring break. Meanwhile, family, friend, and neighbor caregivers who took care of teachers’ children when they worked, earned less than $8000 per year for their essential services and often struggled to pay for utilities, rent, or even food for their own households. Few of these caregivers had access to hazard pay, relief funds or subsidized protective equipment. The elder care and child welfare sectors have figured out how to value and compensate family members who step up to care for their loved ones. Can we build on those organizational structures to implement an equitable compensation and subsidy structure for all early childcare workers?
Providers’ responsiveness to families and communities at large is an essential feature of child care that needs to be celebrated and compensated. As we rethink the administrative structures that can deliver for children and families, let's start with the women and programs that always do.
In conclusion, we agree with Haspel that making comprehensive, quality early education accessible to all families requires us to rethink how we support and compensate childcare providers. But instead of reinventing the wheel following the model of K-12 education, we believe a better approach is to build new early childhood systems upon existing assets. Comprehensive network hubs that build on the existing assets of early childhood education can ensure quality, sustainability, and universal access to child care. They can also advance progress toward equity by valuing the strengths Black and brown caregivers bring to the table and promising equitable compensation for their services.
Natalie Renew is the Director of Home Grown where Karen Tylek serves as Program Manager. Home Grown is a national collaborative of funders committed to improving the quality of and access to home-based child care.