Four-part state policy agenda: coherent administration, universal affordability, a well-qualified workforce, and quality improvement for all programs¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 8 claims (7 for, 1 mixed) · 4 studies (2 associational, 2 qualitative), q2 · 0 of 4 report an effect size · 8 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The report recommends that California "adopt a comprehensive approach to turn an uncoordinated set of underfunded programs into a true system of supports for children, families, and providers." Its four areas are: build a coherent system of ECE administration with state and county coordinating bodies and a one-stop shop; make ECE affordable for all children birth to age 5, including universal preschool for 4-year-olds and sliding-fee-scale care; build a well-qualified workforce through higher expectations paired with education supports and higher wages; and improve quality in all programs by raising minimum standards and ensuring access to coaching and job-embedded supports through QRIS.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• State-level investment and legislation to fund coordinating bodies, expanded subsidies, workforce supports, and quality improvement activities

Constraints¶

• The report frames some measures as immediate short-term steps, such as fully funding Local Planning Councils, reinstating centralized eligibility lists, longer contracts, and higher reimbursement rates, toward the longer-term goals

Target Learners¶

• Children birth to age 5 in California, especially low-income children, dual language learners, infants and toddlers, and children who are homeless or in foster care

Target Learning Goals¶

• School readiness and long-term development supported by access to high-quality early childhood education

Claims¶

• Publicly funded ECE programs in California served only 33% of eligible children under age 5 in 2015–16, leaving nearly 650,000 eligible children without access [+W]
• California's ECE programs are held to very different quality standards, which can mean unequal learning opportunities for similar children [+W]
• Low compensation and inconsistent qualification requirements undermine recruitment and retention of California's ECE workforce [+W]
• Access to subsidized ECE is extremely limited for California infants and toddlers, with approximately 14% of eligible infants and toddlers enrolled [+W]
• California's subsidized ECE system serves only a minority of eligible children, with the lowest access among infants and toddlers [~W]
• Mixed delivery early care systems experience fragmentation that creates barriers such as siloed funding, inefficient subsidies, and workforce turnover [+W]
• In 2022 only one in nine eligible California children—and one in seven eligible Alameda County children—received subsidized childcare [+W]
• California's teacher workforce is aging, with about 40% age 50 or older and 14% age 60 or older [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• State and federal policy recommendations: recruit and prepare more candidates, retain new teachers through early-career mentoring, and improve working conditions
• Use local resources to serve children birth through age 3 to stabilize community providers as 4-year-olds move into TK
• Federal policy should expand access to high-quality, integrated early care and education with quality assurance and adequate ECE educator compensation
• Federal strategy for coherent ECE governance through a coordinating body, unified family referral services, and integrated data systems
• Federal strategy to raise ECE quality by setting higher CCDBG standards, minimum quality requirements for federally supported preschool, and funding coaching
• Federal strategy to develop and support a well-qualified ECE workforce through compensation, career-ladder scholarships, preparation programs, and coaching
• Six state policy steps to support early educator preparation, paired with adequate compensation and retention policies
• Five policy questions for unifying, funding, and improving California's ECE system
• Eight policy and practice actions for scaling early childhood coaching systems, from dedicated funding to data collection

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Melnick, H., Meloy, B., Gardner, M., Wechsler, M., & Maier, A. (2018). Building an early learning system that works: Next steps for California. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/early-learning-ca