麻豆精品

Elliot鈥檚 Provocations unpacks current events in the early learning world and explores how we can chart a path to a future where all children can flourish.

It feels bizarre to be writing these words, but the U.S. stands of a real early learning system. President Biden鈥檚 framework for the 鈥淏uild Back Better鈥� bill retains $400 billion over six years for child care and universal pre-K, investments that will allow parent fees to drop, supply to increase and compensation to spike – – the last of which is deeply tied to quality. Moderate and progressive Democrats are still hashing out their overall differences with the package, but assuming they can get the bill passed, .

The question then turns to: how do we get from here to there?

Implementation is always tricky, all the more so when you鈥檙e trying to largely build a system from scratch (many child care advocates rightly say we have a child care 鈥榥on-system鈥� at the moment). Happily, a recently released resource from Bank Street College of Education offers up some guideposts. Earlier this year, Bank Street convened a group of early childhood thought leaders鈥攐f which I was honored to be a part鈥攖o consider the question of what it looks like to establish child care as a public good. The of the same name puts forth the group鈥檚 recommendations.

The principles offered are:

• Update and Expand the Value Proposition
• Invest In and Plan for the Long-Term
• Design for Anti-Racism
• Commit to Quality
• Partner with Educators, Families and Communities Throughout Policy Design and Implementation

The last three points are particularly relevant for implementation. The brief notes that 鈥渨e must name the system design components that perpetuate inequities, inefficacies, fragmentation and unintended consequences. At the same time, we can build from aspects of our system that have centered around anti-racism and equity … Designing an anti-racist ECE system requires a shared commitment to a concept of quality that includes equitable experiences of quality among the children and families it serves, allowing space for the definition of 鈥榪uality鈥� to be expansive enough to include a continuum of preferences, priorities and values that represent the cultural diversity and needs of all learners.鈥�

There are many racist (and classist) components to the current system: for instance, the process of applying for and acquiring child care subsidy 鈥� assistance disproportionately used by people of color鈥攃an feel designed to be a discouraging and brutal Kafka-esque journey. This is no accident; as historian Sonya Michel , the 1996 welfare reform bill turned child care 鈥渋nto a lever for punitive policy toward poor and low-income mothers.鈥�

Similarly, suspensions and expulsions of young children occur among children of color than their white peers. (ELN also recently wrote about pre-K expulsions.) One thing I learned when reporting on the excellent design of Multnomah County (OR)鈥檚 universal pre-K initiative was how vital it is to have diverse parent voices involved to avoid the very unintended consequences the brief warns about. For instance, it was the parents鈥� involvement in setting the campaign鈥檚 policy priorities that ensured the initiative bans preschool suspensions and expulsions.

“America has made the decision not to invest in quality care. But it does not have to be this way, and changing our approach does not have to be incremental.鈥�

Brandy Jones Lawrence and Emily Sharrock, Bank Street College of Education

Quality is another area in need of a reckoning. There may be a temptation among policymakers to reach for public school analogues when it comes to quality metrics. While there are lots of times when schools make good comparisons for early learning settings, this isn鈥檛 one of them. Quality for younger children often looks and feels different (frankly, schools could take a few lessons from ECE!). Moreover, the traditional quality rating systems in early childhood have come under in recent years for privileging a particular perspective of care.

We can do better. In a blog post, Bank Street鈥檚 Brandy Jones Lawrence and Emily Sharrock a vision for how considering child care as a public good can lead to better quality, writing that 鈥淎merica has made the decision not to invest in quality care. But it does not have to be this way, and changing our approach does not have to be incremental.鈥�

It is unbelievably exciting to be talking about the potential implementation of a real child care system instead of arguing about whether one should exist. The implementation phase is not, however, going to be easy. Starting with 鈥榝irst principles鈥� like those laid out in the brief will smooth what could be a rocky road — and no matter the state of the path, we are finally, finally, finally headed in the correct direction.

This story originally published on Early Learning Nation and is now archived on 麻豆精品. Learn more here.