Source: Cynthia Estlund, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 82 no. 3, 2019
….At the same time, each of those three big ideas holds within it an essential component of a sound three dimensional response to the uncertain but real prospect of job losses. In lieu of UBI [universal basic income], we should expand universal social benefits—starting with health care and higher education—and income support for the working and non-working poor. In lieu of a federal job guarantee, we should ramp up public investments in infrastructure, social and community services, and early education, all of which would address unmet societal needs while creating decent jobs. And in lieu of (or at least before) reducing weekly hours of work across the board, we should expand access to paid leaves, holidays, and vacations, as well as voluntary part-time work and retirement security; we could thereby spread work and meet varied individual needs and preferences through days, weeks, months, and years of time off.
In combination, these three interventions—expanded universal social benefits and income support, public investments in physical and social infrastructure and the job creation those will entail, and wider access to paid leaves and respites from work—would advance core objectives of each of the three big ideas while muting their disadvantages. Together they would both cushion and offset automation-related job losses, while spreading the work that remains and maintaining or boosting incomes. This trio of policies could and should also be funded in a way that helps to redistribute income from the top to the bottom of an egregiously and increasingly lopsided income distribution.
…..In what follows, I will fill in the outlines of this argument. Part II will briefly set out some normative priors about the multiple ends we should be pursuing as we face a future of less work. A long Part III will take up each of the Three Big Ideas, briefly tracing their genealogy and identifying some strengths and weaknesses of each. Part IV will return to the core aspirations of the Three Big Ideas, and sketch a combination of the three – a three-dimensional strategy – that can preserve much of the good while avoiding much that is problematic in the more single-minded Three Big Ideas. ….
Source: Andrew S. Griffen, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 54 no. 3, Summer 2019
From the abstract:
To explore the role of childcare policies in the development of early cognitive skills, this paper jointly estimates a cognitive achievement production function and a dynamic, discrete choice model of maternal labor supply and childcare decisions. Using counterfactuals from the model, I investigate how the designs of two childcare programs, Head Start and childcare subsidies, affect the formation of cognitive skills through maternal work and childcare decisions. The results suggest large impacts on cognitive skills from expanding Head Start to current noneligibles and negligible impacts of subsidies on cognitive skills of current eligibles.
Source: Leila Schochet, Center for American Progress, March 28, 2019
More mothers would increase their earnings and seek new job opportunities if they had greater access to reliable and affordable child care. ….
….This report highlights the relationship between child care and maternal employment and underscores how improving child care access has the potential to boost employment and earnings for working mothers. Based on new analysis of the 2016 Early Childhood Program Participation Survey (ECPP), it demonstrates how families are having difficulty finding child care under the current system and how lack of access to child care may be keeping mothers out of the workforce. The report then presents results from a national poll conducted by the Center for American Progress and GBA Strategies, which asked parents what career decisions they would make if child care were more readily available and affordable. Finally, the report outlines federal policy solutions that are crucial to supporting mothers in the workforce. ….
Source: Heidi Macdonald, Sarah Pompelia, Policy Report, March 2019
From the abstract:
A signature product, this special report is the result of tracking, analyzing and identifying trends in education policy proposals featured in governors’ State of the State addresses. Check out the six education priorities – school finance, workforce development, teaching quality, early learning, postsecondary financial aid and school safety – identified by governors across the states in 2019, as well as state highlights for each priority area.
Click here to access a more in-depth resource — searchable by year, state or issue — of State of the State addresses, starting at 2005.
Source: Bruce Atchison, Emily Parker, Jill Mullen, Tom Keily, Education Commission of the States, Policy Report, February 6, 2019
From the abstract:
This Policy Brief begins by reviewing the educational and societal impacts of quality pre-K programs before revealing legislative changes to state pre-K funding in 2017-18. The brief highlights four states and breaks down total pre-K funding for all states, including year-over-year changes.
Source: Julie Rowland Woods, Education Commission of the States, EdNote blog, January 17, 2019
The elections resulted in big changes in state leadership, including a sizable cohort of 20 new governors. Because many governors appoint top education policy leaders in their states, they play a key role in setting their state’s education policy agenda. So, what are they planning for education in 2019 and beyond?
To figure that out, we track governors’ State of the State addresses. These speeches sketch out governors’ policy priorities, highlight past accomplishments and reflect on the condition of their state and our country. Each year, we summarize and identify trends in education policy proposals featured in these addresses. And we add these summaries to our interactive map within 48 hours of the address — click on a state to see a summary of the education policy issues highlighted by that state’s governor every year since 2005! (You can also view governors’ education proposals by year and issue — an easy way to spot trends across states.) …
Source: Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC), 2018
In April 2018, 50 states responded to an Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC) survey to assess states’ capacity to link child-, family-, program-, and workforce-level data across ECE programs. Linking child-, family-, and program-level data means having the ability to follow individual children, programs, and staff across programs and over time. Data may be housed in different systems or within the same system. The 2018 Survey included questions about linking child-, program-, and workforce-level data; data governance and policies; and uses of coordinated early childhood data.
National findings and recommendations from the 2018 Early Childhood Data Systems Survey are available in our final report. Click here to explore an interactive map with state profiles containing child, program, and workforce data.
Source: Linda Smith, Bipartisan Policy Center blog, April 30, 2018
The draft Power to the Profession framework outlining professional qualifications for early care and learning professionals has reopened a debate in the early childhood community that many felt had been put to rest with the publication of the report Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). In fact, most had hoped that it had been put to rest. But the new draft framework includes a recommendation that an associate degree, or AA, be the entry-level credential for early childhood educators. So, necessarily, here we are again, debating whether a bachelor’s degree, or BA, is the appropriate entry-level credential for a lead early childhood educator.
Source: Adrienne Fischer, National Conference of State Legislatures, May 23, 2018
States are leading the way with creative and timely solutions to support pre-K through third grade education (P-3).
Red and blue states alike are increasing investments in public pre-K programs, while others that are new to providing state-funded pre-K are looking at initial outcomes. Meanwhile, several other states are grappling with funding decisions.
Overall, legislation varies widely, from assessing school readiness in Utah, to providing quality improvement grants for low-income pre-K students in Colorado, to limiting suspension and expulsion of P-3 students in Virginia.
Check out NCSL’s new P-3 Education Bill Tracker for an interactive look at P-3 education bills introduced and enacted from 2018 legislative sessions. States have filed more than 300 bills across a broad spectrum of issues related to early learning. Legislators’ focus this session has been on pre-K, comprising 22 percent of all P-3 education bills filed.
Source: Julia L. Mendez, Danielle A. Crosby, National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families, Publication number: 2018-15, May 2018
From the introduction:
Child care assistance for low-income families is intended to reduce the cost of care for working parents, encourage children’s participation in high-quality child care arrangements, and increase stability in parents’ employment and children’s care arrangements. Children from low-income backgrounds who access high-quality early care and education (ECE) programs fare better on many developmental outcomes than children who do not. Common forms of child care assistance include federal subsidy programs, ECE programs such as Head Start/Early Head Start, and publicly funded universal pre-kindergarten programs.
Understanding how low-income families search for and locate ECE programs that meet their needs, and how they obtain assistance to pay for ECE, is a critically important issue for researchers and policymakers.
Historically, Hispanic families have underutilized government assistance programs aimed at serving families who experience poverty, reporting that they do not need them or do not have knowledge of the assistance available or eligibility requirements. Research has also found that Latino and other immigrant groups may not use federal assistance, due to a belief in helping their larger group (collectivist orientation), which could result in families foregoing support so that others may benefit, even when they themselves are eligible for assistance.
Because the Hispanic population is growing rapidly and often faces considerable economic need—and because ECE can play an important role in reducing racial/ethnic disparities in early learning and later school outcomes—it is important for the research and policy community to better understand how and why low-income Hispanic parents search for ECE. This study takes a closer look at low-income Hispanic parents’ reported reasons for conducting a search for an ECE provider or program for their young children.
This brief uses data from the 2012 National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE) to describe why low-income Hispanic parents with young children (birth to age 5) report searching for child care; comparison data for low-income non-Hispanic black and white parents are also reported. Prior research involving low-income families from various racial/ethnic backgrounds showed that parents report a variety of reasons for their ECE searches. There are also several important barriers to low-income families’ use of care, including lack of availability, low affordability, and poor alignment with parents’ work schedules. Understanding similar or shared concerns about ECE across U.S. racial and ethnic groups—along with differences across these groups—can guide outreach by programs and inform policy adjustments that might better serve diverse groups…..