In Washington State, ECEC programs delivered in a school (i.e., kindergartens) are administered by the Department of Education (not ACECQA), and quality data are not published. The following ACECQA data therefore mainly reflect the services provided in childcare facilities and give a good indication of the evolution of the formal childcare sector. There is strong and growing bipartisan support for early childhood education. Congressman Tom Cole (OK-04) recently wrote, “The success of future generations depends on investments made in our children in the earliest and most formative years,” [i] and Joaquin Castro (TX-20) agreed, “If we invest in our children early, it will bring long-term benefits to our nation by strengthening our future workforce and increasing America`s competitiveness around the world.” [ii] These representatives lead the first congressional pre-K caucus, which aims to draw attention to the importance of access to preschool education and improve access to preschool. The caucus` focus on formal preschool programs is based on the widespread results of some studies on early model programs such as Perry Preschool and Abecedarian, which have found positive long-term effects. Quality care and education can take place in both a formal and informal setting. Young children are constantly learning and the quality and reliability of a young child`s relationships are essential for healthy development. Carers and carers are an important measure of the quality of any childcare service.3,4 The figures for two-year-olds are even more dramatic, with television being particularly high for those who are informally unpaid. In addition, formal caregivers are much more likely to read books to children and take them outside with them than those who have been informally cared for. Given the wide range of children in all types of care, it is not surprising that adjusting to differences in children`s family history does not explain the obvious differences in learning between children in formal and informal care.
Even children who look alike in a variety of measured characteristics – including gender; race and ethnicity; income; birth weight; current weight and height; number of children in the house; the employment status of the mother; the highest level of education of parents; main language spoken at home; WIC receipt; a range of household practices, including daily reading, television exposure, frequency of shared family meals, and parental discipline practices; urbanity; and census tract – They learn much less when they visit informal care facilities than they do when they do in formal care facilities. However, such regulation is not free of charge and may indeed have unintended negative consequences. If the regulations increase operating costs for informal caregivers, as they are likely to do, and these regulations do not come with increased subsidies, the cost of child care will increase, placing an additional burden on low-income working families. Some caregivers will leave the sector or choose to provide “unlicensed” care and will therefore not even be subject to the current level of regulation. Regulations alone create unfunded mandates and are unlikely to be sufficient. If regulation is accompanied by a financial investment to support regulated and affordable care, families are more likely to benefit. But again, the downside of regulation is that it sets a minimum standard, but doesn`t do much to improve quality beyond that standard. Lesaux and Jones say they do not assume that informal child care arrangements are automatically inferior to formal child care. Parents who take more than ten hours of care per week for their children aged 0 to two are very likely to opt for formal care. If they need less than ten hours of care per week, they are more likely to choose informal care arrangements. This trend is the same, but less pronounced in children aged three to five.5 Significant differences in teachers` knowledge and skills may contribute to these differences in experience in children.
Caregivers are much more likely to have a degree in early childhood education, have a child development associate designation, and participate in continuing education. To give just one example, 80% of caregivers in formal institutions for four-year-olds report continuing education. This figure is only 16% for informal caregivers. From birth, children need safe, stimulating and responsive care to ensure healthy early childhood development. Childcare services, i.e. the care of a child by a person other than parents or guardians, may be provided formally by childcare facilities or informally by grandparents and other relatives, friends, neighbours or nannies. Children`s participation in formal child care and early childhood education programs (e.B Kindergarten) is summarized as Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). In this indicator, we will report only data related to the child care component of ECEC. Despite the widely recognized benefits of early childhood experiences in formal settings that enrich children`s social and cognitive environment, many children – especially infants and toddlers – spend their days in unregulated (or very easily regulated) “informal” daycares. More than half of one- and two-year-olds are regularly cared for by caregivers other than their parents, but only about half of them, or a quarter of this age group, are in a licensed formal care facility. More than four-year-olds attend licensed centres, but many of them receive mainly informal and non-parental care.
In the case of a disability, high-quality formal child care can allow for early assessment and intervention. It can also help families find the right supports and services that can help their child develop and reach their full potential. In addition, formal and informal care arrangements can also provide regular respite for parents and caregivers of children with disabilities. Often, differences in learning between programs can be explained by differences in participating children, but this does not appear to be the case with formal and informal care based on data that includes a large set of observables. Children from poor families are cared for informally almost as often as other children, although they are slightly more likely to be cared for by their parents and slightly less likely to participate in formal care facilities. Children from Hispanic families are slightly more likely to attend informal care facilities than other children, while children from black families are slightly less likely. Overall, however, the differences are small, although these categories may hide a huge heterogeneity. “Informal” can mean a great nanny offering rich learning opportunities to a child, or it can mean a dangerous situation for young children. The main reason families use informal care for their children from birth to age 12 is to give parents the opportunity to work (60.5%) and for personal reasons (27.0%).4 “One of the challenges of our current evidence base is that we do not have enough information on formal and informal attitudes.” said Nonie Lesaux, an education professor who is leading the research with Harvard professor Stephanie Jones.
Overall, three out of four VA families with children aged 0 to twelve who use formal care do so for professional reasons.3 Children in care outside the home can benefit from high-quality formal child care that exposes them to a nursing and responsive learning environment while providing respite for the child`s caregivers. Early childhood education and care have a positive impact on a child`s cognitive, emotional and social development and improve subsequent academic and life outcomes.1 Children in care outside the home should have equal access to these services. The difference in quality between formal and informal care is striking. Four-year-olds at home, informal care watches an average of nearly two hours of television per day, compared to less than 7 minutes in formal care. Similarly, 93% of formal supervisors report doing reading and math activities on a daily basis, compared to 68% of informal tutors for reading and 60% for math. The differences for young children are just as big. .