2

Opportunity Gaps in Early Care and Education Experienced by Children from Birth to Pre-K

Historically, a major focus of education research and policy has been on achievement gaps, with much debate centered around remediation at the child level. Here, the committee takes a markedly different approach to transcend an exclusive focus on outcomes. We argue that a narrow focus on outcomes (e.g., gaps in health or achievement) ignores the critical role of the historical and structural precursors and processes that have preserved or increased such gaps in outcomes over time and across a child’s early years. Instead, as discussed in detail in Chapter 1, the committee focused its attention on the opportunity gaps that have resulted in these outcome gaps, and on the historical and structural drivers of these opportunity gaps. In this chapter and Chapter 3, respectively, we review the evidence on those drivers and their effects on the outcomes experienced by young children with respect to early care and education (ECE) and early elementary education. We also examine gaps in access to services designed to benefit young children and their families in general, but further interrogate how even access to such programs is insufficient if the experiences children and families have in these programs are unfair, inadequate in quality, or even harmful.

The organizing focus of this chapter is an understanding of gaps in (1) access and (2) quality experiences as they relate to gaps in child outcomes in ECE systems and as shaped by history and perpetuated by policy. We examine the literature on policies that show promise in bridging gaps across these two areas. The evidence reviewed in this chapter serves as the basis

for recommendations, presented in Chapter 8, on a targeted universal¹ approach to high-quality ECE systems, aligned with a well-funded, equitable, quality early education system, as well as recommendations on a more inclusive framework for quality programming in ECE and throughout the early grades that is essential to narrow or eliminate disparities in outcomes.

WHY EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION MATTERS

It has been more than 20 years since the publication of From Neurons to Neighborhoods, a National Academies study that solidified understanding of the critical role of the early years in brain development and later life outcomes and, equally important, the role of the child’s environment in shaping early brain development (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council [IOM & NRC], 2000). This early work helped underscore the need to invest in supporting children during these malleable and influential early years. Decades of research on high-quality preschool and early education programs have shown that children reap from these programs both short-term benefits and long-term benefits that persist through adolescence and into adulthood (IOM & NRC, 2000, 2015).

A number of longitudinal studies initiated in the 1960s and 1970s have demonstrated the long-term promise of high-quality ECE. The Abecedarian program, for example, followed 111 children (98% of whom were Black) through age 21 (Barnett & Masse, 2007; Campbell et al., 2012). The children were randomized shortly after birth, with the intervention group accessing a center-based ECE program 8 hours a day until age 5 years (Ramey, 2018). The Perry Preschool Program followed a sample of 123 Black children from low-income households through age 40 (Schweinhart et al., 2005). This program provided the intervention group with 2 years of half-day high-quality preschool and weekly home visitation. And the Chicago Child–Parent Center study matched intervention children with peers of the same age and similar socioeconomic background, providing center-based half-day preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds in the intervention group, along with health and social services and free meals (Reynolds et al., 2011, 2017; Reynolds, Ou, & Temple, 2018). The study includes approximately 1,400 children, is federally funded, and is routinely implemented in the Chicago Public Schools. The evidence across these three longitudinal studies shows long-term positive outcomes in the areas of school experiences and trajectory, schooling outcomes, adult earnings, health, welfare dependency,

___________________

¹ Targeted universalism entails setting universal goals for all groups concerned while using processes and strategies that are targeted to the needs of different groups—based on how those groups are situated within various societal contexts (e.g., geography, culture, socioeconomic status)—in order to achieve those goals (powell, Menendian, & Ake, 2019).

risky behaviors, and crime (Campbell et al., 2002, 2012; Schweinhart et al., 2005; Barnett, 2011).

While acknowledging that these rigorously studied programs produce positive child outcomes over the long term, some scholars critique the original program approach (e.g., the terminology used and a deficit approach), the definitions of quality, and the lack of direct attention in program design to the racial experiences of young children (Derman-Sparks & Moore, 2016; Allen et al., 2021; Bruno & Iruka, 2022). Citing programs’ goals of increasing the IQ and cognitive development of children from “disadvantaged homes” so they could succeed in general education, for example, Bruno and Iruka (2022) point out that Abecedarian focused on reducing perceived deficits such as “preventing mild mental retardation” rather than building on children’s strengths. A strengths-based approach incorporates children’s sociocultural context into the program design, such as in staffing, everyday activities, approaches to discipline, and the transition to elementary school. Another critique of the traditional ECE intervention framework is the primary emphasis on changing individual child outcomes without addressing structural barriers that create opportunity and outcome gaps, an emphasis that assumes the structural barriers as a given and forges a compensatory response. Although these compensatory efforts may be admirable, transformation of the structural system to promote equitable opportunity for all children may be much more powerful.

In part because of these epistemological limitations and consistent with recent efforts to address structural racism in such fields as biomedical research (Collins et al., 2021), contemporary scholars point to the need to reexamine these foundational early childhood models with a strengths-based approach using an antiracist lens. This approach entails examining whether measures of ECE outcomes, processes, and practices are relevant to the population participating in the program and addressing such factors as sociocultural history, language, culture, and positive racial identity, while advancing a mixed-methods research design (e.g., particularly in-depth qualitative data collection to understand the nuances of interactions; Bruno & Iruka, 2022). This evaluation approach can better inform policy and practices that support the development of Black children and other children of color (Allen et al., 2021; Bruno & Iruka, 2022).

More recently, research has found long-term benefits with respect to schooling or labor market outcomes for a mix of universal and targeted preschool programs, such as the Abbott preschool program in New Jersey (Jung & Barnett, 2021), the Boston preschool program (Gray-Lobe, Pathak, & Walters, 2021), North Carolina’s Smart Start and More at Four (Muschkin, Ladd, & Dodge, 2015; Bai et al., 2020), the Chicago Child–Parent Centers (Reynolds, 2019); Georgia’s Preschool Program (Han & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2021), the Tulsa pre-K program (Gormley, 2017; Gormley et al.,

2023), and Head Start (Joshi, Geronimo, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2016; Bailey, Sun, & Timpe, 2021). Positive outcomes have been found for targeted pre-K programs serving mainly children in low-income households, as well as for universal pre-K programs (Bartik, Gormley, & Adelstein, 2012; Cascio & Schanzenbach, 2013; Phillips et al., 2017; Jung & Barnett, 2021; Villareal & Lee, 2022), although the benefits appear to be greater for children from low-income households (Gormley et al., 2005; Barnett, 2011; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). The benefits of improvements in child development and subsequent positive outcomes in the labor market are strongly associated with school-related experiences and are the source of most of the economic returns on quality preschool programs (Barnett, 2011; Reynolds, Ou, & Temple, 2018; Cannon et al., 2017; Gormley et al., 2023; Varshney, Temple, & Reynolds, 2022).

Findings from individual studies such as those described here are further supported by meta-analyses. For example, McCoy et al. (2017) reviewed medium- and long-term outcomes of ECE programs between 1960 and 2016 and found participation to be associated on average with significant reductions in grade retention and special education placement, and with increases in high school graduations. Other meta-analyses of preschool programs (Camilli et al., 2010; Duncan & Magnuson, 2013; Kay & Pennucci, 2014; Schindler et al., 2015; Joo et al., 2020) have similarly concluded that they have on average substantial positive effects on child learning and development across a range of developmental domains. In high-quality programs, the magnitude of the impacts appears to decrease as children progress through formal education, but on average, effects persist even at moderate levels, and impacts on children’s school experience (e.g., with respect to special education, grade retention, school progress, and behavior) clearly emerge.

A combination of experimental and nonexperimental longitudinal studies of Head Start have found that it has significant impacts on children’s school readiness in the short term and is associated with a host of positive benefits in the long term (Joshi, Geronimo, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2016; Meek et al., 2021).

Black and Latino children appear to demonstrate the greatest short-term gains in math and language by the end of their first year in the program; Black children demonstrate the greatest gains in writing, and Latino children demonstrate the greatest gains in applied problem solving (Aikens et al., 2013). Other scholars have found that the program narrows school readiness gaps (Pianta et al., 2009; Bitler, Hoynes, & Domina, 2014). Research has also identified associations between Head Start enrollment and health outcomes, including better overall health, less obesity, increased dental care, and higher likelihood of having health insurance, compared with non–Head Start ECE programs (Alford, 2009; Puma et al., 2010; Lumeng

et al., 2015). In addition, positive family and parenting outcomes have been noted in Head Start families, including associations with more positive parenting practices, such as reading to children; decreases in spanking (Zill et al., 2001; Puma et al., 2010); and parental educational attainment and maternal well-being (Parker, Piotrkowski, & Peay, 1987; Sabol & Chase-Lansdale, 2015; Schanzenbach & Bauer, 2016).

In the long term, nonexperimental studies have found that Head Start enrollment is associated with a decreased likelihood of grade retention and a higher likelihood of high school and college graduation and skill certification (Ludwig & Miller, 2007; Schanzenbach & Bauer, 2016). Most recently, using large-scale administrative data from the program’s first 15 years of operation, researchers found that Head Start was associated with increases in schooling, high school graduation, and college enrollment and completion (Bailey, Sun, & Timpe, 2021). Finally, a recently published study examining the intergenerational effects of Head Start on child and family outcomes identified several long-term benefits, including decreases in teen parenting and criminal engagement by 8 and 13 percentage points, respectively, and increases in high school graduation and college enrollment by 11 and 18 percentage points, respectively. In the second generation, researchers found reductions in grade repetition and criminal engagement. The researchers quantified these outcomes in terms of increased wages (Barr & Gibbs, 2022). Despite these findings, Head Start has never been fully funded to enroll all eligible children. Moreover, inadequate funding of existing slots, paired with wide-scale implementation, has contributed to varying quality (Joshi, Geronimo, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2016).

Despite the extensive evidence of the benefits of ECE reviewed by the committee, some research has shown that ECE does not always translate to long-term outcomes. Multiple reviews of pre-K evaluations have concluded that when children enroll in high-quality programs, they consistently outperform their peers without such experience in early language, math, and social-emotional skills at the end of the pre-K year and during the kindergarten year. However, the evidence that this advantage is sustained in the long term is mixed (Yoshikawa et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2017; Meloy, Gardner, & Darling-Hammond, 2019). Specifically, longitudinal studies of Head Start (Puma et al., 2010, 2012) and the Tennessee Voluntary PreKindergarten (TN-VPK) program (Lipsey et al., 2018; Durkin et al., 2022), which used random assignment to create treatment and control groups, found that children in these programs made significant gains initially, but by as early as first grade, their peers in the control group had caught up in their cognitive and social-emotional development. In the Head Start study, however, certain subgroups, such as dual language learners, children with disabilities, and children from “high-risk households,” sustained gains made during the preschool year through first and third grade (Puma et al., 2010, 2012).

Evaluators of these programs and studies point to a few explanations that can guide the implementation of ECE in the future. First, the quality of the curriculum, teaching and learning training and supports, and the ability of teachers to engage in high-quality interactions and developmentally appropriate activities are key (Yoshikawa et al., 2013; Phillips et al., 2017; Meloy, Gardner, & Darling-Hammond, 2019). In a study in Tennessee in 2009–2011, for example, 85% of classrooms scored below “good” on a classroom observation measure (Farran et al., 2014). And evaluators of the TN-VPK study (Durkin et al., 2022) point out that findings stem partly from focusing strongly on “constrained” skills (e.g., names or sounds of letters) and less so on “unconstrained” skills (e.g., vocabulary, comprehension). In particular, they propose that greater focus on executive function skills could yield larger gains during the pre-K year and make those gains last longer. The focus on measuring such “constrained” skills in the Head Start Impact Study might also explain why even though the early gains in such measures appear to dissipate, other studies, such as those discussed earlier, have found significant impacts into adulthood and intergenerationally (Durkin et al., 2022).

Some research has sought to understand the mechanisms that contribute to long-term adult outcomes (Ramey & Ramey, 2019). Categorizing the evidence in relation to pathways that contribute to adult effects, various authors (Reynolds et al., 2011, 2017; Reynolds & Temple, 2019) have found that stimulating educational experiences in ECE direct children into positive scholastic development and attitudes toward school (and related transitions through school) that continue into adolescence and adulthood. This finding takes into account all outcomes—not just cognitive measures but also other markers, such as progression, attention, engagement, and motivation. Also included in this work is a family support hypothesis whereby ECE programs enhance family functioning and parenting practices, which in turn increases children’s learning time, content learning, and access to learning materials, and has the indirect effect of enhancing motivation and attitudes toward learning (Reynolds et al., 2017; McCormick et al., 2020). Both of these pathways have featured prominently in the previously discussed landmark studies, and it is important to note that, particularly in Head Start, family engagement and wellness are a core part of the model.

This same research on pathways also includes a school quality hypothesis according to which sustained effects are related to whether subsequent schooling experiences are of sufficient quality, explaining why in some cases, children who did not attend pre-K programs appear to converge with their pre-K peers (Yoshikawa et al., 2013; Meloy, Gardner, & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Reynolds & Temple, 2019). Some evidence appears to align with this hypothesis, with several studies showing that children’s pre-K gains persist only when they attend higher-quality elementary programs

(Bailey et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2017; Carr et al., 2021). Some of the same researchers that conducted the TN-VPK study performed a subsequent analysis and found that pre-K students who later enrolled in high-quality elementary schools, as indicated by teacher and school ratings, maintained their advantage over non-VPK participants through third grade (Pearman et al., 2020). Similarly, Reynolds et al. (2017) show that enrollment in higher-quality schools for children in the Chicago Child–Parent Center program mediates the association between preschool participation and school achievement and attainment. And research on Head Start found that children who attended Head Start followed by a well-funded elementary school outperformed both their peers who attended a less well-resourced elementary school and those who did not attend Head Start at all (Johnson & Jackson, 2019).

Collectively, this research base—including longitudinal randomized controlled trials; program evaluations; meta-analyses; and nonexperimental longitudinal studies—sheds light on the potential effects of ECE on children’s long-term trajectories. It also underlines, however, how differences in children’s access to high-quality ECE programs and disparate experiences within programs can be major contributors to the opportunity gaps that lead to deficits in later development and achievement. Indeed, despite the well-documented and robust benefits of high-quality ECE, access to these programs has consistently been less attainable for children from such communities. Many children who do have access, particularly those from historically marginalized communities, have markedly different and lower-quality experiences compared with their White, higher-income, native English-speaking peers. Herein lies a paradox in the history of the United States: a commitment to the value of opportunity and mobility through education while systems that reproduce educational inequalities on the basis of race, gender, socioeconomic status, and language background are perpetuated. Eliminating inequities in basic access to and experiences in ECE programs, then, is one critical and basic step toward addressing the opportunity and outcome gaps experienced by some groups of young children (IOM & NRC, 2000; National Academies, 2018, 2019a,b,c).

While opportunity gaps exist in both the ECE system and the early elementary grades, the ways in which these gaps manifest in each of these two systems differ in important ways. In the United States, compulsory public education—beginning between ages 5 and 8, depending on the state—is a right to which all children are entitled and a public good whose cost is borne by federal, state, and local governments. Because it is a right embedded in state constitutions and in federal law, the public has legal recourse if faced with inequitable access to a quality education. By contrast, such rights for children and families in the pre-K years are established in neither state constitutions (with very limited exceptions) nor federal law, with the

exception of children with disabilities, who have a right to preschool services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B 619, although those services often fall short of the need in both quality and quantity (Rebell et al., 2017; Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021). The absence of a legal obligation for the states or the federal government to provide ECE means that unequal access to any early learning experiences is the de facto policy in the United States—an inequity that is felt most by children from marginalized populations.

This situation may be changing. The federal government has enacted relevant precedents that could pave a path forward toward a right to access ECE services. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act permits the use of funds for early childhood programs in those schools in which 40% or more of children come from low-income families or are dual language learners above age 3; IDEA Part B explicitly defines its age target as 3 through 21; and federal law also requires access to locally or state-administered preschool for children experiencing homelessness (Rebell et al., 2017). And in some states, courts have considered access to preschool for low-income children through litigation (Rebell et al., 2017).

CURRENT POLICY, FUNDING, AND SYSTEMS

The disparate histories of ECE programs in the United States—such as Head Start and state-funded pre-K, and child care—and the policy goals they were designed to address, as described in Chapter 1, have resulted in the lack of a coherent, intentional approach to ECE. The potential for ECE to address opportunity gaps head on is limited by the fact that its history does not “reflect a consistent philosophy or aim to achieve a unified set of objectives” for young children and families (Vogtman, 2017, p. 11). It is as if Head Start, pre-K, and child care were ill-fitting pieces from different jigsaw puzzles placed on the same board. As a result, children and families are falling through the cracks. Not only do ECE policies lack coherence, but their connection to child development has been tenuous. As stated in a recent National Academies report, “the various goals of ECE policy… were not always based on, nor consistent with, the developmental needs of all children as we understand them today” (National Academies, 2018, p. 45). Finally, because state and federal policy makers have failed to make such programs broadly available—even for eligible children and families—children from families with low incomes or from historically marginalized communities experience significant gaps in ECE opportunities compared with their peers from families not constrained by financial resources, racial discrimination, linguistic barriers, and/or barriers related to their immigrant status (National Women’s Law Center, 2016; Phillips et al., 2017; Corcoran

& Steinley, 2019; Babbs Hollett & Frankenberg, 2022). In short, children from historically marginalized communities have less access to high-quality ECE programs and have lower-quality experiences in these programs, deficits that result in disparities in both opportunities and outcomes that have compounded over time. These disparities have been shaped in part by societal attitudes toward safety net spending and aid for people living in poverty, attitudes that in turn are entangled with racial and class bias, as well as the belief that hard work, talent, and effort allow all individuals to have an equal opportunity to succeed (DeParle, 2021). This belief is countered, however, by the previously summarized research evidence showing that strengthening of safety net supports (e.g., income supplements) is associated with later average higher earnings, better health, and reduced criminal arrests (National Academies, 2019c).

Head Start and state pre-K programs are designed to advance specific early learning and development goals, as reflected in the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework and states’ early learning standards, respectively. Child care programs funded by the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) were originally developed to support parents’ participation in the workforce and had little focus on child development and school readiness. These programs are required to adhere to minimal federal standards embedded in the law and relevant state rules and policies. And although CCDBG’s program standards related to early learning remain significantly less rigorous than those of Head Start and public pre-K programs, the program’s most recent reauthorization, in 2014, made some progress toward supporting child development, including the requirement to “develop, maintain, or implement early learning and developmental guidelines for statewide use by child care providers.... In addition, they must be incorporated into other parts of the child care system and align vertically and horizontally with the standards for other sectors (such as prekindergarten, Head Start, and Early Head Start)” (Administration for Children and Families, 2022, paras. 1–2).

The differences in intent among these three types of ECE programs lead to differences in policy, and ultimately in quality and children’s experiences. Compared with child care programs, Head Start and state pre-K programs tend to have higher standards and compensation for lead teachers, more rigorous education program standards, and more access to public funding, although it is important to note that because state pre-K standards and investment amounts vary across states, quality and access vary accordingly, with some states having very poorly funded systems. Head Start also provides services—such as health screenings, mental health and dental health supports, and family engagement and leadership programs—that target the comprehensive needs of children and families from low-income households. The Head Start Program Performance Standards include provisions on

such topics as teaching and the learning environment, curricula, screening and assessment, oral health practices, nutrition, mental health and social-emotional well-being, and family engagement. In addition, the standards address practice for specific populations, including tribal communities, dual language learners, children with disabilities, and pregnant women (Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, 2022). Table 2-1 presents a comparison of the three major types of ECE programs discussed above, along with programs covered by IDEA Part C and IDEA Part B Section 619, along key dimensions.

In addition, Head Start and state pre-K programs receive funding from the federal or state government in the form of grants. They typically receive the funds in advance of implementing the programs and retain the funds as long as they adhere to standards mentioned previously and serve the number of children supported by the grant. It is important to note, however, that funding for pre-K and in some cases for Head Start often is based not on a systematic analysis of the cost of implementing a high-quality program, especially one that provides compensation and benefits commensurate with the staff’s experience, training, and education and with those provided at the K–12 levels (Belfield & Schwartz, 2007; Barnett & Kasmin, 2018; Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021; Karoly et al., 2021; Kilander, Garver, & Barnett, 2022).

Programs funded by the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) receive funds as reimbursements (after services have been rendered) on a per child basis—and typically only if the child attends the program. Absences result in less funding. The federal government recommends that states set subsidy rates at the 75th percentile of the market rate, which is based on what the community is able to pay, not what it actually costs to provide quality care. This policy inherently creates an inequitable situation in which programs that serve communities with greater poverty receive lower subsidy payments. Even in this inequitable context, very few states actually meet this minimal standard (National Women’s Law Center, 2016). Under this funding model, child care programs that are not part of the Head Start or state pre-K system rely on revenue streams that are much less stable and robust, which impacts the extent to which these programs can support and sustain quality services, including professional development and retention strategies for their staff. Moreover, this funding model ignores structural factors that can mediate program participation (e.g., access to transportation infrastructure, cost of transportation, flexibility of parents’ work schedules), and funding is not based on assessment of the cost of delivering quality services. It should be noted that direct contracts to providers are allowable under CCDBG, but states rarely make use of this mechanism and operate largely with the subsidy and reimbursement system (Office of Child Care, 2022). In states that do make use of contracts, there is some

TABLE 2-1 Comparison of Child Care, Head Start, and State Pre-K Programs and Programs Covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C and Part B Section 619

SOURCE: ^aSchulman, 2021; ^bFriedman-Krauss et al., 2021; ^cNational Survey of Early Care and Education Project Team, 2013; ^dUllrich, Schmit, & Cosse, 2019.

evidence that providers are more likely to be located in lower-income areas, which can increase ECE access in underserved communities and decrease opportunity gaps (Giapponi Schneider, Joshi, & Ha, 2021). Greater use of direct contracts has the potential to give the system more stability and, depending on the assumptions included in the calculation of those contract amounts, to increase quality. However, in order for child care providers to participate, they need to have the administrative capacity, through family child care systems or affiliation with larger social service organizations, to handle the contracting process (Giapponi Schneider et al., 2017).

One promising program that has bridged the differences between child care and Early Head Start, in particular, is the Early Head Start–Child Care Partnerships model. First launched in 2014, this model provides funding through the Head Start system to forge partnerships with licensed child care providers who agree to meet rigorous Head Start standards for infants and toddlers. The model relies on layering child care subsidy funding with Early Head Start funding to enable programs to meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards. Beyond direct effects on eligible children served, the model has spillover effects that benefit all the children in a program (e.g., through more highly trained teachers, safer playground equipment, or a new curriculum). Although some programs have reported that the model poses implementation challenges, it has ultimately resulted in a greater number of infants and toddlers being served in high-quality care (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2019; Bucher et al., 2022; Cardona et al., 2022).

As concluded in a National Academies report on financing in ECE (National Academies, 2018, p. 195):

ACCESS TO EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION SYSTEMS

Although the numerous short- and long-term benefits of participation in high-quality ECE (e.g., increased kindergarten readiness, lower referral rates to special education, higher rates of achievement in later grades) have been demonstrated in existing research, children of color are less likely

than their White peers to attend or have access to high-quality ECE programs across a wide range of settings (Phillips et al., 2017; Babbs Hollett & Frankenberg, 2022; see Appendix B for detailed data on participation in nonparental care arrangements by child and family characteristics). To understand opportunity gaps in the context of ECE systems, it is critical to assess two key dimensions of systemic and programmatic functioning: (1) equitable access to services and resources (considered in this section), which is especially relevant in nonuniversal systems such as ECE; and (2) the quality of the experiences of children and families in the early childhood years. Currently, research suggests that gaps across these dimensions are associated with income, race, language background, geography, funding streams, and other factors, leading to significant differences in children’s lifelong development and their success in the education system (Babbs, Hollett, & Frankenberg, 2022). Here, we review the literature on opportunity gaps in access to ECE programs that contribute to disparities in outcomes among groups of children.

In the absence of large-scale and systematic public investment in ECE in the United States, most families that need or wish to enroll their children in some kind of program must find and pay for the program on their own. In 2016, about 51% of families reported having difficulty finding programs or not finding a program at all (Corcoran & Steinley, 2019). These rates were higher for Black (53%), Hispanic (54%), and Asian American (57%) families and for families earning 100–200% of the federal poverty threshold (54%). Among White families, 47% reported difficulty finding programs or not finding a program at all. The rates were highest for non-English-speaking families (61%). In fact, in 2019, among parents reporting any difficulty in finding an ECE program, a lack of open slots and cost were cited as the main reasons by 27% and 37%, respectively, indicating that these two issues are central to access barriers faced by children and families (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017; Cui & Natzke, 2020).

Families’ decisions about whether and where to enroll their children in ECE programs are based on individual preferences, demographic characteristics, family economic resources and employment schedules, and the supply of available local providers. While existing research on these decisions reveals differences both within and among different types of families, it also suggests that these decisions are associated with children’s characteristics, parents’ work arrangements, parents’ income and education levels, race and ethnicity, place of residence, immigration background, and number of child care centers available within communities (Chaudry et al., 2011; Forry et al., 2013; Miller, Votruba-Drzal, & Coley, 2013; Coley et al., 2014; Crosnoe et al., 2016; Ackert et al., 2018; National Academies, 2018; Shuey & Leventhal, 2018). And since different types of ECE programs are shaped by different

goals, standards, and funding levels, understanding these decision patterns can shed light on the opportunity gaps experienced by children from different demographic backgrounds.

At the same time, it is important to note that while this research, summarized in the section that follows, reviews how families answered a survey on child care decisions, it does not necessarily capture the range of choices families actually had or their true preferences if they had had more choices. Families in low-resourced communities or with low incomes likely have fewer choices than their wealthier peers in affluent communities. Thus their choices may be reflective of care they can afford that is available to them when they need it in order to work, as opposed to the choices they would make if these contextual variables were not a factor. Recent qualitative research suggests that parents, particularly in families with low incomes, make a range of trade-offs in child care arrangements as a result of affordability and availability constraints that can lead to compromising (accepting suboptimal choices) or sacrificing (accepting choices that conflict with needs or preferences) on child care (Savage & Robeson, 2020). With this caveat in mind, the research on family child care decisions based on survey data can be summarized as follows:

• While most families believe in the importance of quality, those with higher incomes and more education and those in which parents do not work full-time are better able to prioritize quality over such considerations as cost and location in their decision-making process (Forry et al., 2013).
• Families with more income and education, including immigrant families, are also more likely to choose center-based programs (Greenberg, 2011; Miller, Votruba-Drzal, & Coley, 2013; Coley et al., 2014).
• Parents who work outside the home tend to choose home-based over center-based care (Miller, Votruba-Drzal, & Coley, 2013; Coley et al., 2014; Ackert et al., 2018).
• Coley and colleagues (2014) found that families who prioritize providers with more training and greater English proficiency tend to enroll their children in center-based programs, while those who prioritize accessibility tend to choose home-based programs. Among immigrant families, a preference for “cultural similarity” was found to be most predictive of choosing a home-based program over other settings (Coley et al., 2014, p. 1351).
• Parents of infants and toddlers and those with unpredictable or nonstandard work hours are more likely to choose a home-based ECE arrangement, while parents of preschool-aged children are

• more likely to choose a center-based program (Miller, Votruba-Drzal, & Coley, 2013; Coley et al., 2014).
• Parents of children with disabilities are more likely to choose home-based ECE settings (Forry et al., 2013).
• African American families are more likely to choose center- or home-based ECE programs (i.e., nonparental care) for their children compared with families of other races and ethnicities (Coley et al., 2014).
• Hispanic and Asian American families—both native and immigrant—tend to choose either home-based or parental care over center-based programs (Coley et al., 2014).
• Rural families tend to choose home-based programs over center-based or parental care (Coley et al., 2014).

As these findings indicate, parents have valid reasons for choosing certain types of ECE programs that may not possess the traditional markers of “quality.” Some do so because these settings are more culturally and linguistically responsive or can provide more individualized attention to infants or children with disabilities, or can provide care when parents need it most. The findings also show why it is important to understand the differences and disparities in funding, standards, and policies among the major ECE program types discussed in this chapter. If certain types of families tend to choose certain types of ECE arrangements that enjoy more or less support for quality, the disparate policies across ECE funding streams and settings could exacerbate opportunity gaps during the early years. Importantly, instead of steering families toward one type of ECE arrangement, one example of an effective policy response would be to ensure that all publicly funded ECE programs receive the necessary and equitable support needed to provide high-quality programming.

Disparities in Access

Disparities in access to quality ECE programs relate to income, race/ethnicity, age group, and geographic region.

Disparities by Income

In 2019, about 62% of children under the age of 6 were enrolled in center-based care, with differences in enrollment by income (Cui & Natzke, 2021). For children in types of care other than parental, those in families whose income was classified at or above 200% of the federal poverty

threshold² were more likely to be enrolled in center-based care (62.8%) than were children from families with incomes classified as either near poor or poor (51.7% and 58.7%, respectively; NCES, 2021). The lower enrollment for children under 200% of the poverty threshold is explained by public financing policies that make ECE programs inaccessible for families that fall just above eligibility thresholds for public subsidies or publicly funded programs (National Academies, 2018). Indeed, families at 100–200% of the poverty threshold report cost to be a central concern (NCES, 2018). While those with incomes below the federal poverty level generally participate without having to pay, expenses for those that do pay may amount to about 20% of their income, a greater proportion than what is paid by higher-income households (National Academies, 2018, Table 2-1). In addition, a 2017 study found that the cost of child care pushes about one-third of low-income families that pay for child care and have at least one child under age 6 into poverty. This was more likely to occur in families with three or more children, those with a head of household with less than a high school diploma, those with a head of household who did not work full-time, those with a single-parent head of household, and those with a Black or Hispanic head of household (Mattingly & Wimer, 2017).

Enrollment rates are less than desirable even for children in families living under 100% of the poverty threshold because while they qualify for subsidized programs, such programs are largely underfunded. In fact, as noted previously in this report, none of the major publicly funded ECE programs have enough funding to serve all eligible children. Only about 17% of families that meet states’ eligibility criteria receive a child care subsidy funded by CCDF (Chien, 2022), while Head Start serves fewer than half of all eligible children, and an even smaller percentage of eligible children in more ethnically/racially diverse states (Schmit & Walker, 2016; Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). Specific communities are even more underserved. For example, only 6% of low-income children with immigrant mothers receive subsidies (Johnson et al., 2014). Analyses of longitudinal cohorts in relation to participation show that, despite increases in total enrollment, socioeconomic gaps in access to ECE actually grew between 1998 and 2010 (Bassok et al., 2016a): in 2010, families with low incomes were less likely to enroll

___________________

² “Poor” is defined in these data as having family income below the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold in the year prior to data collection; near-poor children are those whose family incomes ranged from the poverty threshold to 199% of the poverty threshold; and nonpoor children are those whose family incomes were at or above 200% of the poverty threshold. The poverty threshold is a dollar amount that varies depending on a family’s size and composition and is updated annually to account for inflation. In 2015, for example, the poverty threshold for a family of four with two children was $24,257. Survey respondents are asked to select the range within which their income falls, rather than giving the exact amount of their income; therefore, the measure of poverty status is an approximation.

their children in publicly funded ECE (child care, pre-K, Head Start) in the year prior to kindergarten than they were in 1998.

Disparities by Race and Ethnicity

ECE enrollment rates also differ by race and ethnicity. Estimates of access to high-quality preschool for 4-year-olds show that access is lower for Hispanic children and starkly lower for Hispanic dual language learners relative to their White peers (Nores, Krauss, & Frede, 2018). One-third of low-income Hispanic children are enrolled in ECE settings, compared with half of low-income White children and two-thirds of low-income Black children (Mendez, Crosby, & Siskind, 2018; Nores, Krauss, & Frede, 2018). Research also shows that Hispanic and Asian children are less likely than Black children to have access to Head Start programs in their immediate neighborhood or to receive state-level child care subsidies (Schmit & Walker, 2016; Ullrich, Schmit, & Cosse, 2019; Hardy & Huber, 2020). As a consequence, Black and Hispanic children (together with children with a single parent or no mother in the household and children in households with incomes at 100–200% of the federal poverty threshold) are heavily dependent on care provided by relatives (NCES, 2017). High prices for full-time center-based care, coupled with lower earnings and family incomes, make center-based care more unaffordable for low-income Black and Hispanic parents working full-time year-round (Baldiga et al., 2018; Joshi et al., 2022). Thus, affordability will continue to be a barrier to enrolling children in ECE centers if the high price of child care is not addressed, leading to inequities in ECE access for low-income Black and Hispanic families.

Disparities by Age Group

Enrollment in ECE among children aged 3–5 has increased since the 1970s, although this growth has slowed in the last couple of decades (Cascio, 2017). In 2016, seven in 10 children aged 3–5 were enrolled in center-based care or received care from relatives or nonrelatives (NCES, 2018), with about eight million of these children, or close to 60%, being enrolled in center-based care (NCES, 2017). In 2021, a large portion of the latter children (36% of 4-year-olds and 12% of 3-year-olds) were enrolled in state preschool programs or Head Start, down from 44% and 17%, respectively, in 2020 (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021, 2022; Figure 2-1).

For children under age 3, enrollment rates are lower than is the case for children aged 3–5. Lack of slots for this age group is reported as a significant issue by families, especially those with children under age 1 year (NCES, 2019). In 2016, only 13% of children under age 1 year and 25% of children under age 2 years were enrolled in center-based care (NCES, 2017),

although children in this age group are more likely than older children to be enrolled in home-based programs. Fewer than one in four children in this age group were enrolled in publicly funded programs (Datta & Borton, 2020). Early Head Start and early intervention programs (discussed below) are arguably the only publicly funded programs designed to advance the early development of the youngest children (National Academies, 2018), and Early Head Start serves only 3% of eligible children (National Academies, 2018). The four states serving the highest percentage of children in Early Head Start—only 6–7% in families under 200% of the federal poverty threshold—are Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Vermont (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021).

Disparities by Geographic Region

Stark differences in ECE enrollment exist by state. In the 2020–2021 school year, the number of children served by Head Start represented 30% of 3- to 5-year-olds living in poverty, and this percentage varies greatly across states, most of which serve fewer than 25% of these children (Figure 2-2). On the high end, North Dakota served about 56% of these children, and on the low end, Nevada served fewer than 10% (Figure 2-2; Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). Similar variation exists for state pre-K programs, with the District of Columbia serving 84% of its 4-year-olds and 73% of its 3-year-olds, while the respective percentages for Arizona are 3% and 2% (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021).

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted Head Start and Early Head Start enrollment in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. During the 2020–2021 program year, 287,000 fewer children were enrolled in Head Start, Early Head Start, American Indian/Alaska Native Head Start programs, and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs. These enrollment rates represent a 33% decline in Head Start enrollment and a 10% decline for Early Head Start between 2018–2019 and 2020–2021. Enrollments began to increase again during the 2021–2022 program year but have not returned to prepandemic levels (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022).

In 2020–2021, state preschool programs enrolled a total of 1.36 million children, including about 1.15 million 4-year-olds. These figures represented a decline to enrollment rates similar to those last seen in 2011 and a decline in coverage for the first time in 20 years (Figure 2-3). In 2021, all state pre-K programs collectively served 29% of all 4-year-olds and 5% of all 3-year-olds (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). As of this writing, six states still provide no preschool program at all, and 18 states serve no 3-year-olds. Only seven states serve more than 50% of their 4-year-olds, and only six serve more than 70%. In a few states, access is nearly universal; however, adequate duration and quality are not always present in these programs (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022).

The lack of available preschool slots, while predominant across the country, also varies by community and region (National Academies, 2018, p. 120). Analyses of the locations of licensed center- and home-based care across geographic U.S. regions have shown that more than half of families live in communities where the number of children exceeds the supply of preschool slots, and this gap is more pronounced for low-income families and those who live in rural communities (Malik et al., 2018). In fact, 60% of rural communities lack an adequate supply of child care. The prevalence of so-called child care deserts varies significantly across states, from fewer than 23% of neighborhoods in Maine to more than 75% in Utah. In addition, nearly 60% of Hispanic and Latino children reside in communities with an inadequate (or no) supply of licensed child care providers.

Growing evidence reveals the existence not only of child care deserts but also of subsidized child care deserts—there is shortage of subsidized child care slots in neighborhoods where eligible children live. In some cases, extreme deserts (e.g., shortages of subsidized child care slots in children’s immediate and surrounding neighborhoods) affect large numbers of subsidy-eligible children (Hardy et al., 2018). One study found that, as a result of high levels of racial/ethnic segregation of children within and across contiguous neighborhoods (see Chapter 1), Black and Hispanic children were four to five times more likely to live in extreme subsidy deserts (Hardy et al., 2018). Targeting CCDBG funds to these extreme subsidized deserts that have high unmet need for subsidized care and a large gap in access to subsidies due to racial residential segregation represents a targeted universalism approach that can reduce racial/ethnic inequities in ECE access.

Gaps in ECE Capacity

Recent analyses suggest that more than 5 million more preschool seats are currently needed to attain universal pre-K (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022; Figure 2-4). A recent national survey found that 81% of parents would likely use a free, universal pre-K program if it became available. Black and Hispanic parents reported a greater likelihood of participating, as did parents with annual incomes below $25,000 (Jung & Barnett, 2021).

Cost as a Barrier to Access

Cost is a central barrier to access to ECE. As of 2019, the estimated average cost of full-time, full-year ECE was $16,500 per child (Cascio, 2021). In 30 states plus the District of Columbia, the average yearly cost for an infant in full-time center-based care is more than the average cost of 1 year (tuition and fees) at a 4-year public university (National Academies, 2018). Families pay about 52% of the total cost of ECE in the United States, making it the only education level for which parents shoulder most of the

financial burden. Moreover, the burden is not proportionally distributed: families with incomes at or below the federal poverty threshold spend about 20% of their income on ECE services, while those earning five times that amount spend about 6% (National Academies, 2018). (The Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] sets 7% of income as the threshold for affordable child care.)

The cost burden is even steeper for low-income Hispanic (immigrant and nonimmigrant households) and Black non-Hispanic families (Figure 2-5). Among Hispanic families that incur child care costs, 25% pay 7% or less of their household income for child care, while the rest spend on average nearly one-third of their income (Crosby, Mendez, & Barnes, 2019). If working parents had to pay out of pocket for full-time center-based care, based on market prices in their state, 63% would have to spend more than 7% of their household income, and this percentage is higher for Black (69%) and Hispanic (72%) parents (Baldiga et al., 2018). Hispanic families rely heavily on unpaid care from a home-based provider, which may stem from the high price of center-based care. In sum, enrollment rates, cost rates, and difficulties reported by families suggest that many low- and middle-income families are unable to afford center-based child care services without public supports.

Access to Early Intervention and Early Special Education for Children with Disabilities

Another critical aspect of ECE is the identification of children with disabilities and these children’s access to early intervention and preschool special education services. Early intervention has been shown to have positive impacts on children’s developmental and school trajectories (Snyder, 2021), making it a key opportunity for children with disabilities. IDEA established and governs states’ early intervention (<3 years old; Part C) and preschool (3–5 years old) special education (Part B, Section 619) systems for children with disabilities or delays under age 5. The act establishes that children with identified disabilities aged 3–5 have the right to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible and to specialized services as needed (Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities). Part C mandates a system for identifying and serving infants and toddlers with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 1400 [2004]).

Variability in access to early intervention and special education services is shaped by a host of structural factors, such as chronic underinvestment and differential availability of services across regions and locales, particularly in rural areas and in underserved communities of color. The lack of culturally and linguistically diverse evaluators, interventionists, and other service providers also presents a barrier to access to timely evaluation and

quality services for children of color and those from linguistically diverse communities. In addition, policy and technical factors mediate access to services; for instance, eligibility, screening, and early detection criteria and procedures vary across states (National Research Council [NRC], 2002; Macy, Marks, & Towle, 2014; Hirai et al., 2018; National Academies, 2019d). Access to health care is another key factor in attaining access to services (NRC, 2002; Artiles, Dorn, & Bal, 2016; National Academies, 2017).

The most recent report to Congress on IDEA data indicates that 424,318 children aged 0–2 were served under IDEA Part C in 2019 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, representing 3.7% of that age group. Compared with their White peers, Latino, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander children were more likely to be served, while Black and American Indian/Alaska Native children were less likely to be served. Nearly 97% of these infants and toddlers received their services in a “natural” environment, defined as the home or a community-based setting.

Studies of children younger than age 3 show that large numbers of these children who may be eligible are not enrolled in Part C (Simpson, Colpe, & Greenspan, 2003; Peterson et al., 2004; Robinson & Rosenberg, 2004). For example, research on a U.S. longitudinal birth cohort showed prevalence rates of about 13% of this cohort at age 9 and 24 months based on existing eligibility criteria, compared with the provision of services to about 10% of this cohort at age 24 months (Rosenberg, Zhang, & Robinson, 2008). More generally, it is estimated that while about 10.55% of children aged 3–5 have a developmental delay, only approximately 2% to 3% of U.S. infants and toddlers with developmental and social emotional disabilities receive early intervention under IDEA Part C (Zablotsky et al., 2019; Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP], 2021).

Another study (Markowitz et al., 2006), on the characteristics of preschool children with disabilities, raises several questions regarding access to high-quality services. The authors found, for instance, that developmental or health concerns were first raised at a young age (<3 years) for a relatively small proportion of children (ranging from 10% to 30%), pointing to the need for more developmental screening across child-serving systems at younger ages and more frequent intervals, including in pediatric care, child care, and home visiting programs. Of note, children in higher-income households are 26% more likely to receive a developmental screening relative to their peers in lower-income households (Keating et al., 2022). Black and Latino infants and toddlers are much less likely (78%) to have their needs identified (Gillispie, 2021). These children are less likely to be screened, and, even when they are screened, are less likely to have a followup evaluation, a required step in determining eligibility before services are received (Gillispie, 2021). Indeed, one nationally representative study found that families of color had more negative experiences compared with their

White counterparts throughout the screening, evaluation, and identification process (Bailey et al., 2004; Evans, Feit, & Trent, 2016).

For Part B Section 619, 793,542 children aged 3–5 were served in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Bureau of Indian Education schools, representing 6.7% of the resident population in this age group. The most common disability category was developmental delay³ (40.1%), followed by speech or language impairment (39.9%) and autism (11.8%). The category “other disabilities combined” accounted for the remaining children (8.2%). American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and White children were more likely to be served, while Latino and Asian children were less likely to be served. Fewer than 40% of children receiving services in this age group received the majority of those services in a regular early childhood program. A substantial proportion of children received services in a separate classroom, but that number fluctuated by race/ethnicity: 20% of White children, 26.5% of Black children, 28.4% of Latino children, and 34.4% of Asian American children (OSEP, 2021).

Eligibility criteria for preschool special education systems are a significant concern that influences access. States have authority to define “developmental delay,” the most common category for eligibility in this age group. State thresholds for eligibility in this category vary widely, with differences in the extent of delay and the number of domains of delay that meet the eligibility criteria. As a result, children may be eligible in one state and ineligible in another (OSEP, 2021).

The most recent data available through IDEA indicate that nearly 95% of preschoolers with disabilities were served by certified and qualified special educators and paraprofessionals in 2018 (OSEP, 2021), although researchers have previously found racial and income-based disparities in access to certified educators. Markowitz and colleagues (2006), for example, found that a larger proportion of White children (20%) and higher-income children (24%) were served by teachers with a speech and language pathology license compared with Black (8%) and lower-income (11%) children. Furthermore, proportionally more children in the emotional/behavioral disturbance (51%) and intellectual disability (50%) categories were taught by credentialed teachers in early childhood special education compared with those learners with low-incidence disabilities (29%) and specific language impairment (21%). Proportionally more children with developmental delays (54%), emotional/behavioral disability (52%), intellectual disability

___________________

³ IDEA states that children with developmental delays include those aged 3–9 who (1) are experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the state and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or adaptive development; and (2) by reason thereof, need special education and related services (20 U.S.C. § 1400 [2004]).

(51%), and autism (51%) had teachers with special education credentials. In contrast, children with specific language impairment (25%) or low-incidence disabilities (23%) were less likely to have credentialed teachers.

Research has found that receiving special education services in inclusive settings is associated with a host of positive social and academic outcomes for children with disabilities, with notable social benefits for children without disabilities as well (Wiener & Tardif, 2004; Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011). Unfortunately, progress toward greater inclusion of children with disabilities has moved extremely slowly and regressed during the pandemic (Steed et al., 2021). Importantly, research has found that families of children with disabilities have greater difficulty finding high-quality child care, or child care at all, for their children, with one study reporting that about a third of preschoolers with disabilities experienced gaps in accessing preschool (Markowitz et al., 2006). And despite the increase in access to state-funded pre-K over the last several years, there has not been a commensurate increase in children with disabilities receiving services alongside their peers without disabilities (Meek et al., 2020). Notably, the Head Start program requires that 10% of a program’s funded enrollment be for children with disabilities, and the program has a long history of supporting high-quality inclusion and accommodations for these children that even predates IDEA. These data warrant more research to identify more precisely the barriers to accessing services and the quality of services for children with disabilities, particularly for children of color and those from low-income households.

For young children, all of these data vary across state lines as a result of state-determined eligibility thresholds, particularly in the domain of developmental delay. This variation across states represents another opportunity gap, such that in some states, children need to exhibit much more severe delays than they do in other states to be eligible for services. Issues associated with differential screening rates, state and local funding, and transitions between Parts C and B Section 619 also impact this dynamic for families. In all, the disparities in access to early supports, which research finds are critical to growth and development, combined with the uneven access to general education settings and the inadequate dosage and quality of the services many children receive, create substantial opportunity gaps for children with disabilities, particularly those of color.

In general, patterns of underidentification of students of color have been reported in ECE and in the early primary years (National Academies, 2017; Cruz & Firestone, 2022). However, this general finding must be qualified by noting that varying levels of over- and underidentification have been reported in early primary grades by gender, language status, race, grade, and disability category (Cruz & Firestone, 2022). Researchers

have also pointed to the difference between the incidence of disability and its documentation, observing that children of color are most represented in disability categories that require subjective identification (e.g., emotional disturbance). And a group of researchers has been documenting that students of color are underidentified in special education (Morgan et al., 2015, 2017; Skiba et al., 2016; Artiles, 2019). While these differences in identification are not necessarily present for infants, they emerge as children become toddlers (Feinberg et al., 2011).

To summarize, access to high-quality early intervention and early childhood special education programs can have positive effects, although equity considerations need to be explicitly addressed throughout the identification and intervention processes because these factors can shape patterns of under- or overidentification of certain groups and the quality of services received. Recent attention to the contextual influences on disability identification for various racial groups, the consequences of identification and their links to educational opportunity, and recent legal cases offer important opportunities to advance a new generation of research on racial disparities in special education. For instance, promising research directions could stem from the recent Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017) case, which interpreted the requirement of “appropriate education” included in IDEA. In that case, the Court stated (as cited in Turnbull, Turnbull, & Cooper, 2018, p. 126):

The Endrew decision added a requirement for “progress,” called attention to students’ “potential for growth,” challenged educators to maintain high expectations for students, and has critical implications for parents’ roles and professional development. Above all, Endrew “is a narrative about ethics” (Turnbull, Turnbull, & Cooper, 2018) and a timely reminder of the importance of dignity in education. Although Endrew has not been used in research or reforms surrounding disproportionality, it has great potential to add an ethical dimension to scholarship on this complex subject.

Administrative Barriers to Access

Even when ECE programs are available, they may not be accessible, especially to children of color and families with low incomes. Because the provision of publicly funded ECE is largely contingent on perceptions of which children or families “need” or “deserve” such programs instead of being viewed as a public good that confers benefits for individuals and society alike, an array of processes have been established to ensure that these programs are serving the intended beneficiaries. While restrictive program eligibility criteria and administrative systems help ensure that those children and families that most need ECE services receive them, they can also hinder access for eligible individuals. In other words, even when ECE programs exist in the community, administrative processes can create access barriers for eligible families, leading to disparities.

For immigrant families, accessing ECE programs and benefits is more challenging when the eligibility and enrollment processes (e.g., public information, paperwork, staff) fail to take into account that some eligible families may not be proficient in English. Also, immigrant parents with children who are legal residents or citizens and are therefore eligible for ECE programs may be hesitant to apply for assistance or enrollment because they do not think their child is eligible, the applications require social security numbers, or the families have fears—perceived or real—that they may risk deportation or be considered “public charges” for receiving ECE benefits (Gelatt, Adams, & Heurta, 2014; Ullrich, Schmit, & Cosse, 2019; Acevedo-Garcia et al., 2021; Adams & Pratt, 2021). Agency practices, such as requiring social security numbers on eligibility applications even though they are optional in ECE programs, can deter immigrant families’ enrollment. Of the 13 states that contain 80% of the U.S. Hispanic population, 12 requested social security numbers in child care subsidy applications, and five did not indicate that providing the numbers was optional (Hill, Gennetian, & Mendez, 2019). Knowledge and information gaps also create barriers to program participation. Hispanic and immigrant families are less aware of the subsidy program relative to other groups (Pacheco-Applegate et al., 2020). One study found that more than one-third of foreign-born Hispanic parents who were noncitizen legal permanent residents and were eligible for public assistance believed that they were not eligible because of their immigrant status (Alvira-Hammond & Gennetian, 2015). Notably, while studies document information barriers experienced by Hispanic and immigrant families, the effects of these barriers on low-income White, Black, and Asian families have not been studied in depth

Child care subsidies are particularly difficult for families to access within publicly provided ECE programs because these programs have strict work requirements and can be housed in human service systems with other

safety net programs that are administratively burdensome, with extensive application and documentation requirements, interim reporting, and benefit reassessments (Adams & Pratt, 2021). In addition to paperwork and compliance costs, subsidies can be difficult to access because of additional redemption costs (Barnes, 2021). Parents must find providers that will accept their subsidies (e.g., are willing to accept an amount lower than the market price) and that offer care that matches the parents’ work schedules. These types of administrative burdens are linked to higher subsidy instability and low duration of benefit receipt (Henly et al., 2017), which in turn decrease the continuity of child care arrangements and can have negative consequences for children (Pilarz & Hill, 2014). On the other hand, when states ease administrative burden, there is growing evidence of positive effects on subsidy stability and duration of benefits (Ha et al., 2020; Jenkins & Nguyen, 2022).

These barriers are particularly salient for some families, depending on their race/ethnicity. As detailed in Chapter 7, working parents of color are more likely than their White counterparts to have low-wage jobs, often with unpredictable hours or offered as part-time employment, with no or limited paid time off or flexibility during the workday. They also are more likely to live in underresourced communities with less access to public transportation or with limited internet connection (Johnson-Staub, 2017; Ullrich, Schmit, & Cosse, 2019; Adams & Pratt, 2021). Immigrant families have similar working and living conditions (Acevedo-Garcia et al., 2021; Joshi et al., 2022). Taken together, these factors make it difficult for these families to document and prove (and maintain) their income- and work-related eligibility for subsidies, submit paperwork (online or otherwise), meet with agency staff, and afford copayments (Adams & Pratt, 2021). Thus, funding more ECE programs or slots will not be sufficient to increase access if agency staff and policy makers fail to understand and mitigate the barriers experienced by eligible families when they attempt to access services and benefits.

DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES IN LEARNING SETTINGS

Previous discussion in this chapter has focused on various demographic characteristics that are associated with children’s access, or lack thereof, to quality ECE opportunities. These characteristics, such as race, income, language, and disability, are also associated with children’s differential experiences within ECE settings. It is important to note that it is not the demographic characteristics of children that cause these differences in experiences, but the structural drivers of opportunity, such as inequitable access to resources, segregation, discriminatory policies, and biased practices and interactions.

One driving factor that shapes children’s experiences in ECE settings is program quality. Gaps in access to quality are pervasive and disproportionately affect children from historically marginalized groups. More than a fifth of parents cite quality as the primary driver of their difficulty in finding ECE for their children (NCES, 2017). A recent report by the Education Trust found that only 1% and 4% of Latino and Black children, respectively, were enrolled in public pre-K deemed “high-quality” according to the National Institute for Early Education Research’s (NIEER’s) quality benchmarks (Gillispie, 2019; Figure 2-6).

An evaluation of the implementation of New York City’s rapid scale-up of universal public preschool found racial disparities in the quality experienced by White and Black children, with researchers attributing the gap to differential proximity to high-quality providers (Latham et al., 2021). Earlier studies examining pre-K systems yielded similar findings, such that children of color were more likely to attend programs rated as lower quality (Chien et al., 2010; Barnet, Carolan, & Johns, 2013; Hillemeier et al., 2013; Office for Civil Rights Data Collection [OCRDC], 2016; Bassok & Galdo, 2016; Bassok et al., 2016a; Valentino, 2018). Most recently, a review of tiered quality rating and improvement systems in Pennsylvania found that White children were the most likely and Black children the least likely to be enrolled in programs rated higher quality, with the largest racial gaps seen in the youngest children—infants (Babbs Hollett & Frankenberg, 2022). The study also found that Black and Latino children were the most likely to attend programs that served more children whose families received child care subsidies, that were rated lower in quality, and that received less funding through tiered quality rating and improvement systems, findings that could produce a cycle of perpetual inequity. It is important to note, however, that definitions of “quality” vary and often omit dimensions that are particularly important to the experiences of children from historically marginalized communities, particularly those who speak languages other than English at home, racialized⁴ children, and children with disabilities, among others (Phillips, Johnson, & Iruka, 2022).

The only longitudinal birth cohort study of children in the United States examining childhood transition to early education programs and nonparental care (dating back to 2001) showed that Black and Hispanic children experienced lower average quality in home- and center-based care relative to their White peers as measured by the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-Revised (Barnett, Carolan, & Johns, 2013). Using these same data, researchers found that only 18% of low-income children (as measured

___________________

⁴ Racialization is defined as the act of giving a racial character to someone or something or the process of categorizing, marginalizing, or regarding according to race (Merriam-Webster, 2022).

at 185% of the federal poverty threshold) were enrolled in high-quality preschool, compared with 29% of their peers in families above this income level. Similar patterns are seen between children in rural and urban/semi-urban areas—15% versus 30%, respectively. No differences were seen on average in the quality of preschool classroom experiences for dual language learners and children speaking English only (Nores & Barnett, 2014).

Evidence does suggest that quality tends to be lower in classrooms that serve a high percentage of children from low-income families or minoritized populations (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2014; Bassok & Galdo, 2016; Valentino, 2018; Aguiar & Aguiar, 2020). However, specific high-quality programs have shown differing patterns. For example, no average differences across groups were seen in the Seattle Preschool Program (Nores et al., 2017), while in Georgia’s universal preschool program, lower quality was experienced by children from low-income families and communities of color (Bassock & Galdo, 2016).

Program quality is often categorized according to two interrelated dimensions: structural quality, which includes such factors as teacher:child ratios, class sizes, and teacher credentials; and process quality, which includes such factors as teacher–child closeness and teacher–child interactions. It is important to consider that structural and process quality are interrelated and are both driven by broader systemic drivers of opportunity, such as funding and policies (as discussed in Chapter 1). Structural quality is influenced by program and community resources and influences process quality, such as the quantity and richness of the interactions teachers have with each child (Chaudry & Sandstrom, 2020).

Importantly, certain dimensions of quality, both structural and process, that have an outsized influence on the experiences of children of color, and those from historically marginalized communities are often omitted from quality frameworks. Discipline policies, for example, which can be considered structural in nature, and biased perceptions of challenging behavior, which affect process quality, both affect the experiences of children in learning settings, and disproportionately Black children (OCRDC, 2014; Gilliam et al., 2016). Access to bilingual staff (structural) and teachers’ expectations, cultural responsivity, and relationships with families who speak a language other than English (process) all shape children’s experiences, and disproportionately those of immigrant children, Latino and Asian American children, and dual language learners (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2010; Adair, 2015; National Academies, 2017; Limlingan et al., 2020).

As a matter of federal policy, Head Start incorporates many of the indicators typically included in the field’s understanding of quality, including low adult:child ratios (fewer children per adult) and group sizes, research-based curriculum, and access to qualified teachers and aides who undergo continuous professional development through coaches and mental health

specialists. The program’s standards also address many quality indicators that have in the past been omitted from the field’s quality frameworks but are critical to the experiences of children from historically marginalized communities. These indicators include requiring exposure to and development of the home language alongside English for dual language learners; prohibitions on expulsions (which disproportionately and unfairly affect Black children); and holistic inclusion of children with disabilities, with close coordination with special educators, early interventionists, and other service providers. These standards are accompanied by a funded system of quality improvement, supported by federal, regional, and local technical assistance. No state child care or pre-K system standards include all of the quality indicators in the Head Start Program Performance Standards. However, the implementation of these standards in Head Start programs varies across the United States, indicating substantial room for improvement (Joshi, Geronimo, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2016).

The committee’s overview of differential experiences as they relate to opportunity and outcome gaps takes into account these critical and often overlooked dimensions of quality alongside differential access to the more commonly considered dimensions.

THE IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURAL QUALITY STANDARDS

Although there is no single national agreed-upon definition of quality in the ECE system or in the early grades, decades of research have identified several common indicators of quality that are associated with children’s positive experiences and outcomes (Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Zigler, Gilliam, & Jones, 2006; Minervino, 2014; Barnett & Friedman-Krauss, 2016; Reynolds et al., 2017; Weiland et al., 2018; Meloy, Gardner, & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Reynolds, 2019). They include, among others, learning experience with small classes and low teacher:child ratios; a highly skilled and supported workforce; research-based curriculum and meaningful assessment; and developmentally appropriate, play-based pedagogy. With respect to curricula, there is some evidence for the benefits of skill-specific curricula in targeted developmental domains (Joo et al., 2020).

Dosage and duration also appear to play an important role. Most recently, Wasik and Snell (2019) found that full-day, high-quality programs appear to yield stronger results compared with partial-day programs, particularly for children from low-income households. In addition, evidence is starting to emerge that 2 years rather than 1 year of ECE may lead to longer-term outcomes (Arteaga et al., 2014; Ou, Arteaga, & Reynolds, 2019; Jung & Barnett, 2021).

Research has found that failure to produce the desired outcomes in ECE settings can most commonly be attributed to deviation from critical

program standards that results from implementation failure, design failure, and/or inadequate funding. Another likely contributor is lack of attention to dimensions of quality that disproportionately shape the experiences of children from historically marginalized communities. A comparison of Head Start, state pre-K, and other center-based programs by Bassok et al. (2016b) found that higher quality and better child cognitive outcomes are associated with programs following more “stringent regulations” (p. 15). Through its State of Preschool yearbooks, NIEER has tracked state spending, program components, and access for publicly funded preschool programs, as reported by state program administrators (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2022). With respect to characteristics of program design, this source tracks general aspects of structural quality, such as, among others, class size, teacher:child ratios, teacher qualifications, the existence of comprehensive standards, and professional development components, as well as integrated child screenings; the aspects tracked are not exhaustive but serve as minimum features of quality pre-K as supported by research (Barnett & Boocock, 1998; Frede, 1998; NRC, 2001; Clements & Sarama, 2008; Kauerz & Coffman, 2013; Tout et al., 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2013; Minervino, 2014; Weiland, 2016; Manning et al., 2017; Burchinal, 2018). Significant variation is seen in the number of benchmarks present across the 62 state preschool programs rated, although there have been some improvements over the last decade. Local preschool initiatives differ from state preschool programs in standards and program components, with differences seen in curriculum requirements, teacher:child ratios, class sizes, and teacher qualifications across programs (Barnett & Kasmin, 2018; Patterson & Weisenfeld, 2021; CityHealth, 2022). These differences are in addition to differences in funding per child, with funding most commonly being based on resource decisions at the state and city levels instead of on the cost of providing quality programming (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021; Patterson & Weisenfeld, 2021).

Inequities in children’s experiences of structural quality are wide-ranging and are undergirded by historical and continuing inequities in funding and resource allocation for learning systems that serve young children. The subsections that follow review the literature on several key dimensions of structural quality, with a focus on how gaps in these dimensions are associated with gaps in opportunity and outcomes.

Physical Infrastructure

Research has identified several infrastructure- and facility-related challenges in ECE settings, as in K–12, that could have wide-ranging effects on children’s health, safety, development, and learning outcomes. A report published by HHS’s Office of the Inspector General examining nine states

and one territory found that 96% of child care programs receiving public funding through CCDBG had facilities with one or more potentially hazardous conditions, including water damage and broken gates (Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2019). Previous studies at the state and local levels have found similarly concerning issues, ranging from high carbon monoxide levels to rodent infestations, mold, and lead paint (Pardee, 2011; Bipartisan Policy Center; 2019).

Access to clean drinking water is a crucial component of a safe learning environment. Research has found that children in low-income households and children of color are the most vulnerable to lead exposure (National Academies, 2019a) resulting from underresourced communities and infrastructural failures. According to a survey conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 43% of Head Start programs had not tested lead levels in drinking water in the year prior to the survey, with another 31% reporting that they did not know whether this testing had been done (GAO, 2020). With respect to child care programs, GAO found that the federal Office of Child Care largely left the issue up to state licensing and other regulations, which vary significantly in their requirements and processes for remedying problems and holding programs accountable.

Research has shown that these physical infrastructural issues are associated with teacher and child outcomes, including teacher self-efficacy and child attendance and academic outcomes, as well as health outcomes (Barrett, Carolan, & Johns, 2013; Lafortune & Schonholzer, 2018; Barrett et al., 2019). One study of ECE environments found that physical features of the environment, including light, temperature, and air quality, among others, accounted for 16% of academic performance (Barrett et al., 2013). See Chapter 3 for further discussion of environmental toxins and their association with the opportunity gap.

Ratios and Class Sizes

A robust literature examines the effects of adult:child ratios, group sizes, and class sizes on child outcomes in the early years and the early grades. Small class sizes and lower teacher:child ratios characterize existing effective programs, as well as seminal early childhood programs with long-term demonstrated benefits, such as the Perry Preschool program (10–13 children per class) and Abecedarian program (12 children per class [for 4-year-olds]; e.g., Barnett & Masse, 2007; Barnett et al., 2013; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013; Wechsler et al., 2016; Bowne et al., 2017; Reynolds et al., 2017). In general, studies examining the effects of ratio and class size indicate that fewer children and more adults positively impact program quality, children’s experiences, and specific child outcomes (NRC, 2001; Barnett et al., 2003; Bowne et al., 2017). A recent randomized controlled

trial found that children in preschools with smaller class size (i.e., 15 children) compared with regular class size (i.e., 20 children) engaged in more interactions with their teachers and had gained more early literacy skills at the end of the year. No differences were noted in vocabulary or math (Francis & Barnett, 2019). For young children, low ratios and small class sizes are not only important to developmental or academic gains, but also necessary to ensure appropriate supervision, emotional responsivity, and healthy and safe environments. Studies have found that lower ratios and smaller class sizes are associated with higher-quality programming, more stimulating and warm teacher–child interactions, more individualized attention and learning opportunities, and less time spent on classroom and behavior management (Barnett et al., 2003). Lower ratios and smaller class sizes have also been linked to child outcomes, including greater receptive language, verbal initiative, general knowledge, and cooperative behavior and fewer conflictual relationships with peers (Ruopp & Smith, 1979). More recent research has found that smaller class sizes in preschool are associated with significant gains in literacy and in the number of adult–child interactions, but has documented no effects on math or global quality scores (Francis & Barnett, 2019). One experimental study found that elementary school students in small classes (13–17 students) outperformed their peers in large classes (22–26 students) on all tests, across every subject, in every grade (Mosteller, 1995).

Still, effect sizes for the relationship of ratio and class size to child outcomes vary. Several contextual factors likely influence these inconsistencies in effect size reported in the literature, including the degree to which ratio or class size is reduced (e.g., 30 vs. 25 vs. 15 students), teacher quality, and other structural dimensions of programs (e.g., Burchinal, Zaslow, & Tarullo, 2016; Perlman et al., 2017; Howes et al., 2018). Some research suggests a threshold effect, whereby effects are notable only when reductions in class ratio or size are substantial (Burchinal et al., 2000; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2002; Bowne et al., 2017).

Few studies have examined ratio and class size with attention to how their effects may differ for specific subgroups of children, including those in low-income households and those of color, and in turn, how these differences may contribute to opportunity gaps among these groups. One study found that Hispanic children were more likely to attend ECE programs with larger class sizes (Valentino, 2018), a finding replicated in the early elementary grades (Reardon et al., 2019). Two large-scale studies in the early elementary grades—one in Tennessee and one in Indiana—found that smaller class sizes were more strongly associated with outcomes for Black children and children from low-income communities than for other groups (Mueller, Chase, & Walden, 1988; Word et al., 1990; Achilles, Finn, & Gerber, 2000). Another study using data from the National Institute of Child

Health and Human Development’s Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development found that smaller class sizes were associated with growth in early math skills for Black but not White children (Burchinal et al., 2011).

Language of Instruction

There have been relatively fewer studies of the effects of dual language programming in the earlier years. Nonetheless, the robust evidence for the benefits of bilingualism, including early cognitive benefits, higher self-esteem, the impact of early language exposure on later development, and job-related opportunities (National Academies, 2017), supports exposing children to high-quality input in their home language, including and especially in the earliest years. Studies examining dual language models in ECE programs generally have found that children exposed to versus those not exposed to these models make significantly more gains in home language development, either in tandem with greater growth in English development or at the very least, at no cost to English development (National Academies, 2017; Oliva-Olson, 2019). In fact, comprehensive reviews of the research evidence suggest that the development of multiple languages evolved in interrelated fashion. A National Academies report points out that “certain aspects of dual language learning, processing, and usage are significantly and positively correlated and that the development of strong [home language] skills supports the development of English [second language] skills. This interrelationship has been shown to be most evident in domains related to the acquisition of literacy skills and in languages that are typologically similar” (National Academies, 2017, p. 245). These associations are strongest in the development of literacy skills.

Researchers have also highlighted the importance of examining nonacademic skills and the influences of the broader context in which learning occurs (Chang et al., 2007; Meek et al., 2020). Such studies have found positive outcomes associated with using children’s home language in ECE settings, including improved teacher–child relationships and peer social skills (Chang et al., 2007). One study found an association between Spanish use in the classroom and a variety of executive functioning skills, such as increased frustration tolerance, task orientation, and assertiveness. In contrast, more use of English was associated with teacher-rated conduct and learning problems (Chang et al., 2007).

Bilingual instruction and staff may also facilitate teacher–family relationships and parent involvement—critical components of high-quality early experiences. A related benefit of promoting bilingualism is that it may help support children’s positive racial socialization by enabling them to maintain cultural connections and relationships with extended family members (Muller et al., 2020), and scholars have noted that dual language

approaches could offer one pathway to more culturally responsive schools (Lindholm-Leary & Hernández, 2011; DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2018). It is important to note, however, that bilingual and dual language models themselves are not necessarily culturally responsive. Research has found a lack of cultural affirmation and promotion of positive racial identity in some bilingual programs (Chávez-Moreno, 2021), and scholars have suggested that adding these dimensions as explicit goals of dual language and bilingual education models could help address this gap (Palmer et al., 2019).

Most recently, an analysis of English learners in Chicago preschool programs found that those who received bilingual education services compared with their peers who refused those services had stronger academic outcomes, as measured by grades, test scores, and English proficiency, and better attendance. On the other hand, the relatively small percentage of children who had access to dual language immersion classrooms failed to demonstrate advantages in line with those recorded previously in the literature, and scored below their peers on various academic outcomes. The authors suggest caution in interpreting these results, however, as they did not measure any outcomes in children’s home language(s) or in social-emotional variables, and the data in English that were collected did not go beyond third grade, notably earlier than the point at which other longitudinal studies, and the literature more broadly, indicate demonstrable positive impacts (i.e., in fifth and eighth grade; Steele et al., 2017). Indeed, some research has found that the strongest effects of high-quality dual language models appear in the later grades (i.e., upper elementary and middle school), after initial delays (Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013).

Despite the evidence summarized above, the vast majority of ECE and early education programs offer instruction exclusively in English. This practice may disadvantage some dual language learners who are not proficient in English, such that they cannot access or take full advantage, at least initially, of the curriculum and of social and learning opportunities, given that it takes several years to acquire oral language proficiency and additional years to acquire academic English proficiency (Collier, 1995; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Menken & Kleyn, 2010). Thus although they may have physical access to educational settings, their ability to engage fully with the content being taught and with their teachers may be hampered. The limited supply of high-quality bilingual or dual language ECE programs and early elementary schools and the limited enrollment of dual language learners in such programs represents an opportunity gap that affects English learners, Latino and Asian students, and immigrant children disproportionately (Castro & Meek, 2022).

Closing opportunity gaps in this area will require specific policies to support the large and growing population of dual language learners in ECE systems today. These policies range from access to high-quality bilingual

learning opportunities, to appropriate assessment, to culturally affirming family engagement policies. Required as well is a more linguistically diverse, qualified workforce to provide services in children’s home language(s), foster dual language learning, and form partnerships with families that speak a language other than English. Today, policies in ECE designed specifically to support dual language learners are insufficient or altogether lacking. A 2018 report from NIEER documents the complete absence of policies on dual language learners in 18 states (Friedman-Kraus et al., 2019). Those policies that did exist addressed some dimensions of programming for these children but not all. For example, only 24 states collected information on a child’s language background, 14 states required written plans for how programs would serve dual language learners, 17 states required assessing children in their home language, and only 6 states required staff training in or qualifications for working with these children (Nores, Krauss, & Frede, 2018).

Harsh and Exclusionary Discipline Policies

It is well documented that exclusionary discipline, including suspension and expulsion, starts early and is disproportionately applied to Black children, boys, and children with disabilities (GAO, 2018). The first study examining preschool expulsion, conducted nearly two decades ago, found that preschoolers were expelled about three times more often than their peers in K–12 settings, and that Black children were twice as likely and boys were four times as likely to be subject to this form of discipline relative to their peers (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006). Nearly a decade after this study was published, the Department of Education’s (DOED’s) Office for Civil Rights published the first set of federal data on preschool suspension and expulsion through the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The findings were strikingly similar. Black children made up 19% of the preschool population but 47% of all preschoolers that were suspended, while their White peers made up 41% of enrollment but only 28% of those suspended (OCRDC, 2016). An analysis comparing preschool suspension rates over time found that although the rate of preschool suspension had fallen sharply, by about half, between the last two data collection periods, these racial disparities remained (Fabes et al., 2020).

In addition to exclusionary discipline practices, corporal punishment, defined as inflicting physical pain for purposes of discipline or behavior correction, is a problematic practice in some contexts. Corporal punishment in public schools is legal in 19 states; in private schools, it is legal in 48 states. The CRDC indicates that 851 preschoolers in public pre-K programs were subject to corporal punishment in 1,490 total incidents during the 2017–2018 school year alone (OCRDC, 2018).

Discipline policies and practices contribute to opportunity gaps through a variety of mechanisms. They affect the critical teacher–child and family–teacher relationships that are foundational to early learning experiences (Powell, 2020). Research on the quality of emotional support in ECE settings has found that Black children are more likely to attend programs characterized as lower in emotional support, and that emotional support is negatively associated with “problem behavior” (Iruka et al., 2019). It is important to note that positive discipline cultures can reduce disciplinary injustices in preschool settings (Gansen, 2021). Evidence suggests that children aged 3–5 in early childhood learning environments may be especially at risk for punitive and non–developmentally appropriate discipline and have expulsion rates higher than those in the K–12 system (Gilliam, 2005). In particular, in 2017–2018, Black preschool boys made up 9.6% of preschool enrollment but received both suspensions (34.2%) and expulsions (30.4%) at rates more than three times higher than their share of enrollment. By comparison, White boys, who represent 23.8% of preschool enrollment, received 32.1% of suspensions and 33% of expulsions (OCRDC, 2021). Students facing this kind of discipline in these early years have been shown to be more likely to experience discipline in later school grades, drop out of high school, feel disengaged from school, and be incarcerated later in life (Lamont et al., 2013). In addition, Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have a right to access education on the basis of promoting equal opportunity (UNICEF, 1989). Although this convention has not been ratified in the United States, suspension and expulsion can prevent young children from accessing this right, potentially creating disparities in opportunity.

Policies to address disciplinary practices have had mixed results, for a variety of reasons. With the first federal publication of pre-K suspension and expulsion data in 2014 came greater awareness of how exclusionary discipline was affecting the youngest students, especially Black preschoolers. Shortly thereafter, the Obama administration published guidance on preventing and avoiding exclusionary discipline in ECE programs (HHS & DOED, 2014) and in K–12 settings (Department of Justice and DOED, 2014). In that same year, Congress addressed expulsion in the reauthorized child care law, requiring states to report their policies on child care expulsion and making expulsion prevention and social-emotional development an explicit allowable use of funds to improve the quality of child care. In 2016, HHS updated both the Head Start and child care regulations to include explicit language addressing exclusionary discipline. A wave of state and local policies followed, consisting primarily of new state legislative efforts to limit exclusionary discipline in public pre-K and early education, and modest executive efforts by governors and state agencies to prevent

exclusionary discipline in child care by providing professional development, engaging families, and requiring data collection (Loomis et al., 2022).

Despite the large number of new policies, however, the quality of those policies varied by scope of coverage (who was protected—e.g., age, system), content (for what infractions children could or could not be excluded), and accountability (whether there would be consequences for excluding children; Meek et al., 2020; Loomis et al., 2022). Moreover, the latest publication of the CRDC indicates steep declines in preschool suspensions and expulsions, but disparities in exclusionary discipline between Black children and their peers have remained largely unchanged. Exclusionary discipline undermines efforts to expand access to quality ECE and does so in a way that disproportionately disadvantages Black children. Addressing exclusion from education via suspension and expulsion is a critical step toward bridging opportunity gaps across the educational continuum, an issue discussed further in the next chapter.

THE EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE

A critical component of both ECE and early elementary school experiences is the teaching workforce. Two prior National Academies consensus studies have focused on the workforce of practitioners who contribute to the care and education of children from birth through age 8: Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8 (IOM & NRC, 2015) and Transforming the Financing of Early Care and Education (2018). This section examines the factors related to the ECE workforce with the potential to either drive or mitigate disparities in opportunity.

While policies related to workforce competencies, degree requirements, compensation, and systemic supports and coaching are structural in nature, the workforce is undoubtedly the most critical factor in process quality, as discussed below. Research shows that if ECE programs are to reduce opportunity gaps and systemic barriers to services and resources associated with racial, linguistic, cultural, economic, and immigrant background, they must be staffed by well-prepared, well-supported, and competent professionals. Programs staffed by such individuals tend to have more positive impacts on children’s learning and development relative to those that lack educators who are intentionally trained for and supported in this work (IOM & NRC, 2015). The effectiveness of ECE educators is driven by a number of interrelated factors (IOM & NRC, 2015):

• Professional preparation and ongoing job-embedded supports that increase educators’ understanding and competencies related to (1) the critical array of subject matter and domains of development from an early childhood perspective (language and literacy,

• mathematical and scientific thinking, social-emotional development, physical health); (2) children’s learning and development trajectory for each content area and domain of development; and (3) the professional approaches and strategies that help children, including those who have learning disabilities or are learning multiple languages, advance in developmentally appropriate ways along these trajectories.
• Policies, systems, and working conditions that allow educators to practice effectively, including professional compensation and benefits and supportive working environments (e.g., paid time for breaks and lesson planning, effective program leaders, adequate materials and supplies). The lack of these supports leads to high turnover rates and places stress on ECE educators’ health and well-being, limiting the positive impacts they can have on young children’s learning and development.

Critical dimensions of workforce readiness and competence that include providing culturally responsive and affirming learning experiences and being attuned to and actively addressing biases in practice, both of which are discussed further below. Both are necessary for providing quality services to the diverse population of young children in the United States.

Unfortunately, ECE educators lack access to the above professional supports. Whether they have access to any, some, or extensive supports is driven largely by the funding streams, policies, and regulatory systems (i.e., state pre-K, Head Start, child care) that support and govern their work. The results of this uneven approach to supporting ECE educators affect children inequitably. For example Ulrich, Hamm, and Schochet (2017) found that:

• families with higher incomes are able to enroll their children in ECE programs that provide better professional supports for their staff;
• children from families with low incomes who are enrolled in state pre-K or Head Start compared with those in other ECE programs tend to have ECE educators with more professional preparation and ongoing supports and better compensation and working conditions; and
• infants and toddlers compared with preschool-aged children from families with low incomes are less likely to be served by well-trained and well-supported professionals.

Since the ECE workforce is central to the quality of ECE programs, addressing the inequities related to these educators could also help reduce

inequities in children’s ECE experiences and in turn, the opportunity gaps experienced in the earliest years of life. The following discussion elaborates on disparities related to the ECE workforce in four areas: education and professional preparation, compensation, access to professional development and supportive working conditions, and professional beliefs and practices.

Education and Professional Preparation

Some research indicates that ECE educators’ educational attainment and professional preparation are associated with the teacher–child relationship (Chaudry & Sandstrom, 2020). A meta-analysis found that teachers’ education levels were associated with more positive teacher–child relationships and child outcomes, as reported by teachers (Howes, Jolena, & Ritchie, 2003; Kelley & Camilli, 2007). It must be noted, however, that long-standing systemic barriers make it more difficult for people of color and people from low-income communities to enroll in and graduate from higher education systems.

As discussed earlier, the major publicly funded ECE programs—Head Start, state-funded pre-K, and child care—were established for different purposes, and accordingly are governed by varying policies related to funding levels, eligibility criteria, and quality definitions and standards. One of the most important areas in which ECE programs differ is policies related to the professional workforce—how they are prepared, paid, and supported. The vast differences among program types (Head Start, pre-K, child care) and settings (centers, homes) can have major implications for these programs’ capacity to address opportunity gaps experienced by children in the early years. Strengthening the coordination of policies among the major ECE public funding streams that are focused on compensation and workforce quality can lead to increased workforce recruitment, retention, and stabilization across program types, as well as better outcomes for children. When such policies are uncoordinated, they create instability and inequities in ECE. For example, when policies regarding educator qualifications or compensation differ purely because of how a program is funded, where it is located, or the age group it serves, the result is a two-tiered workforce, with those in better-resourced programs receiving better pay, benefits, and supports. Other programs—and the children they serve—are left with teachers who are less likely to have resources to improve their practice and more likely to struggle with low wages (National Academies, 2018).

Effective, evidence-based ongoing professional development, job-embedded coaching, professional learning communities, and apprenticeship models can provide ECE educators with continuous education, support, and skill development in accessible and equitable ways. Policies that support such intentional approaches can lead to strengthening the workforce

without overburdening the ECE workforce to advance their educational attainment (IOM & NRC, 2015).

Examples of differential ECE workforce educational requirements and attainment across programs include the following:

• State pre-K and Head Start teachers are required to attain higher levels of education and credentials relative to other ECE teachers.

  In 24 states, pre-K teachers are required to have a bachelor’s degree in ECE (McLean et al., 2021). Head Start regulations require that at least half of programs’ lead teachers have the same level of professional preparation, although the current workforce well surpasses that mark, with almost 75% of all Head Start teachers having a BA in ECE (Barnett & Friedman-Krauss, 2016). In contrast, no state’s child care licensing regulations require this level of professional preparation for lead teachers. The highest level of education required of teachers in licensed child care is an associate’s degree for center-based teachers (two states) and a child development associate (CDA) or similar credential (but less than an associate’s degree) for home-based providers (six states; McLean et al., 2021).

• Center-based teachers who work with preschool-aged children have more professional preparation relative to infant–toddler teachers.

  According to a nationally representative survey from 2012, 45% of center-based teachers of preschoolers had a BA or higher, compared with 19% of infant–toddler teachers. At the same time, 28% of infant–toddler teachers had attained at most a high school diploma, compared with 13% of preschool teachers in centers (NSECEP, 2015).

• Home-based teachers who are “listed” (recognized and regulated by the state) have lower education levels compared with center-based teachers, but more of them have attained more education and professional preparation in recent years.

  In 2012, about 30% of home-based teachers had an associate’s degree or BA; in 2019, 36% had attained this level of education. In the meantime, the proportion of home-based teachers with a high school diploma or less had decreased from 33% to 25%. Home-based teachers were also more likely to have a CDA in 2019 than in 2012 (52% vs. 42%; Datta et al., 2021).

Increasing the education levels and professional preparation of all ECE educators can help address the uneven quality of ECE programs (as measured by traditional constructs) experienced by young children, especially infants and toddlers and those who participate in home-based programs. But the quality and relevance of the professional preparation experience are

critical. A National Academies report from 2015 details what is entailed in effective professional training experiences in higher education and job-embedded contexts (IOM & NRC, 2015). Preparation and continuous professional development in providing culturally and linguistically responsive and affirming care and in understanding and addressing harmful biases are critical. It is also important that the attainment of higher degrees and credentials come with commensurate increases in compensation and benefits. Otherwise, ECE educators may opt to leave their ECE jobs for better-paying opportunities in public schools, in state-funded pre-K or Head Start programs, or outside of the field altogether.

Finally, it is important to note that increasing the education levels and professional preparation of the ECE workforce could lead to greater inequity absent an intentional strategy for preserving or increasing the racial and linguistic diversity of the workforce, and an intentional preparation and development strategy that specifically addresses providing culturally and linguistically affirming learning and combating harmful biases. While the ECE workforce is less highly educated than the public education workforce, they are much more representative of the children and communities they serve relative to public school teachers (Austin et al., 2019). Some research, especially in K–12 education, has shown added benefit from children’s learning when they are taught by educators who share their racial and cultural backgrounds (Miller, Votruba-Drzal, & Coley, 2013). As discussed earlier, there are also well-established benefits to supporting children’s home language and offering bilingual learning opportunities for dual language learners, making a linguistically diverse workforce, reflective of the children they teach, especially important for this population. As discussed in greater detail below, the racial diversity of ECE educators may affect children’s early learning experiences, especially those of children of color. Thus, any efforts to increase ECE teachers’ education and credentials need also to invest in the recruitment and support of racially and linguistically diverse staff, especially those with fewer financial resources, those with no to minimal experience in higher education, those with children of their own, and those who must remain employed while pursuing higher degrees. ECE systems at the local and state levels have employed a range of strategies to support incumbent educators’ efforts in education and professional advancement, including scholarships and wage supplements for achieving higher credentials and degrees; apprenticeships that combine job-embedded learning, higher education supports, and wage increases; cohort programs that allow for robust peer-to-peer support; academic supports, including tutoring and counseling; classes offered online, on weekends, or in community settings; coursework tailored for early childhood educators with limited English proficiency; and the provision of college credit for prior experience or learning (Whitebook et al., 2012; Lieberman et al., 2020).

Compensation

In 2012, the median hourly wage of center-based ECE teachers was $10.60 (NSECEP, 2013), or just above $22,000 per year. According to census data, between 2014 and 2016, the families of 53% of child care workers were enrolled in one of four public assistance programs: Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or the earned income tax credit (Whitebook et al., 2018). Similar to educational requirements and access to professional supports, compensation across ECE programs and age groups is inequitable even when educators have college degrees.

• ECE educators in Head Start, publicly funded pre-K, and school-based pre-K are better paid than those in other settings (e.g., licensed child care), although still well below the average of what K–12 teachers earn.

  ECE educators with a BA earn more than $20/hour in school-based pre-K programs, about $16/hour in Head Start and publicly funded pre-K, and less than $14/hour in other settings (NSECEP, 2013).

• ECE educators who work with preschool-aged children are better paid than infant–toddler teachers.

  The median hourly wage for center-based infant–toddler teachers was $9.30 in 2012, compared with $11.90 for preschool teachers in ECE centers (NSECEP, 2013). The Center for Study of Child Care Employment estimates that this disparity amounts to up to $8,375 per year (McLean et al., 2021).

These disparities in compensation are at least in part a function of the fact that Head Start and pre-K teachers are often required to have higher levels of education compared with other ECE teachers. In general, ECE teachers with more education, regardless of program types or age groups served, earn more (NSECEP, 2013; Austin et al., 2019; McLean et al., 2021; see Table 2-2).

Even so, depending on program type, ECE teachers with a BA earn $29,000 to $43,000 per year, compared with about $53,000 for kindergarten teachers and $56,000 for elementary school teachers (National Academies, 2018).

Within-field racial pay disparities exist as well. Black ECE educators—in both preschool and infant–toddler child care settings—are paid less than their peers in similar settings ($0.77 and $1.71 less per hour, respectively). Black teachers are also more likely to teach infants and toddlers than preschoolers, garnering lower wages as discussed above (McLean et al., 2021).

TABLE 2-2 Median Hourly Wages (in dollars) of Center-Based Teachers and Caregivers by Age of Children Served and Sponsorship and Funding of Center-Based Program or Employment

NOTE: The Head Start–funded category excludes school-sponsored programs; the public pre-K–funded category excludes school-sponsored and Head Start–funded programs.

^a Value suppressed because of small sample size.

^b Interpret data with caution because of small sample size.

SOURCE: NSECEP, 2013.

Access to Professional Development and Supportive Working Conditions

Professional development opportunities, such as in-service training, coaching, and communities of practice, can improve practice, teacher–child relationships, and child outcomes if they also incorporate design and implementation principles that research has associated with effectiveness. However, lack of investments, inconsistent policies, and inequities within the ECE system result in wide variation in the quality of and access to professional development across the field (IOM & NRC, 2015). Other research suggests that teacher training in child development and in-service coaching are predictive of more positive teacher–child relationships (Tout, Zaslow, & Berry, 2005). Although research shows that access to professional development and training benefits quality, access to these supports varies across child care type and by state.

• Home-based educators participate in professional development at rates similar to those of center-based educators, but are much less likely to receive financial support to do so.

  Almost half of center-based ECE teachers who reported participating in professional development workshops, college courses, or

• coaching said they received financial support to do so, compared with only 15% of home-based educators (NSECEP, 2015).

• National and state ECE policies generally provide little assurance that educators have the supports that lead to effective professional practice and continuous improvement.

  For example, of the 62 state-funded pre-K programs in the country, only 14 meet the basic standard of providing at least 15 hours of professional development per year, creating individualized professional development plans, and offering coaching (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021). Compared with their peers in the K–12 public education system, state pre-K teachers are much less likely to have paid time for professional development, lesson planning, and other professional responsibilities, even when they work in the same public schools. Only about half the states offer the same kind of job-embedded coaching to state pre-K teachers that they offer to K–12 teachers (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2019).

ECE educators in child care programs that are not part of pre-K systems fare even worse. These supports are typically not required, and are incentivized and supported only through states’ quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS). Even then, QRIS in most states do not include the supports mentioned above as standards of program quality to meet or aspire to. For example, only 15 states’ QRIS support or incentivize paid time for professional development for center-based child care programs, and only one state’s QRIS does the same for home-based programs. Sixteen states’ QRIS include paid planning time as a quality standard for centers, while only eight states do so for home-based programs (McLean et al., 2021). In addition, QRIS have low participation rates in many states across the country, so support through this system alone leaves out many providers and the children they serve (Souto-Mannin & Rabadi-Raol, 2018; Reinke, Peters, & Castner, 2019). This is the case even more so for family care providers and other home-based providers (Schilder et al., 2015; Hallam et al., 2017), as well as providers in predominantly Black communities (Jenkins, Duer, & Connors, 2021). Scholars suggest that this may be due to various requirements that, because of structural inequities, may either be more burdensome for historically marginalized groups to meet or require participation in systems, such as state licensing, in which some communities have less trust. As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, the indicators commonly included in QRIS often lack an emphasis on cultural or linguistic responsiveness, factors that may be particularly important for parents of color and their children (Meek et al., 2022). Finally, one study found that tiered QRIS, which ascribe varying levels of reimbursement based on quality ratings, perpetuate inequities by providing fewer resources to those rated

lower in quality. The same study found that Black and Latino providers were most likely to be rated lower in quality, indicating that they receive fewer resources (Babbs Hollett & Frankenberg, 2022).

Beyond access to professional supports, working conditions can have a significant impact on teachers’ wellness and the services they provide to young children. Such factors as high teacher:student ratios and group sizes, little to no time for breaks or planning, lack of organizational and leadership support, and poor-quality physical space, paired with low compensation and benefits (including paid sick and vacation time) all can affect teachers’ stress and behavior and children’s experiences. Research has found, for example, that teacher stress can negatively impact the teacher–child relationship as a result of teacher–child conflict and teachers’ hostility and anger toward the children they serve (Goelman & Guo, 1998; Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Hamre et al., 2012; Gastaldi et al., 2014; Chen, Phillips, & Izci, 2018; Chaudry & Sandstrom, 2020). Teacher stress is also associated with a greater likelihood of harshly disciplining children (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006). It is important, then, to consider the policies and funding decisions that affect these working conditions, and how well-resourced programs can ensure that their workforce has healthy working conditions, smaller class sizes and lower ratios, access to mental health specialists and other supports to address social and emotional development, substitute teachers, adequate breaks throughout the day, and paid sick leave.

Professional Beliefs and Practices

Likely related to the above differences between home-based and center-based settings, educators in these two types of settings tend to report different beliefs and practices. In a national survey, for example, 71% of center-based teachers said the main reason they worked in ECE was that it was a career or personal calling, while another 21% said it was to help children. Among listed home-based providers, the proportions with the same responses were 48% and 9%, respectively. The same survey found that 74% of center-based teachers reported using a curriculum, compared with 55% of home-based providers. Almost 90% of center-based providers reported helping families find at least one ancillary service (e.g., developmental assessment, counseling, social services), compared with 44% of home-based providers (NSECEP, 2015).

PROCESS AND INTERACTIONAL QUALITY

All of the previously described structural dimensions of quality, alongside the competencies and credentials, compensation, and conditions of the teaching workforce, determine children’s experiences in ECE programs and

in some instances, whether children have access to learning opportunities at all. Importantly, these dimensions set the conditions for process quality, including the teacher–child relationship and teacher–child interactions, which researchers agree are critical foundations for learning, secure exploration, and developmental and academic outcomes (IOM & NRC, 2015). This section briefly summarizes the voluminous research literature on different components of ECE process and interactional quality and highlights whether and how the experiences of children of color, low-income children, and dual language learners have been addressed.

Pedagogy, Instruction, and Access to Enrichment

A large body of research examines various pedagogical approaches in ECE settings, concluding that play, structured and unstructured, is important to children’s development. Researchers have found that play in preschool is associated with receptive and expressive language skills in young children and with math and reading skills in elementary school (Lewis et al., 2000; Hanline, Milton, & Phelps, 2008; Zosh et al., 2018). Research also has found a negative association between the amount of time dedicated to free play and externalizing behavior (Veiga, Neto, & Rieffe, 2016). A recent study of more than 2,200 children found that unstructured play in the early years was associated with improved self-regulation two years later (Colliver et al., 2022), with previous research having identified the importance of self-regulation to a host of short- and long-term academic and well-being outcomes (Moffitt et al., 2011; Robson, Allen, & Howard, 2020). A meta-analysis found positive effects of guided play compared with direct instruction on early math skills, shape knowledge, task switching, and spatial vocabulary. No differences were noted in other outcomes, notably literacy, prosocial behavior, and social competence (Skene et al., 2022). Overall, the research in this area suggests that a combination of guided play, free play, and developmentally appropriate direct instruction is needed to promote the full range of children’s development and learning.

Despite the support for play-based pedagogy and learning opportunities, research indicates that teachers report a lack of competence and confidence in engaging in play-based learning (Bubikova-Moan, Næss Hjetland, & Wollscheid, 2019; Beaven et al., 2020). Research also indicates that Black, Latino, dual language learner, and low-income children are more likely to be in ECE programs that engage in more individual and didactic instruction as opposed to child-directed or play-based models (Chien et al., 2010; Valentino, 2015), which, according to research, may be associated with outcomes related to attention, memory, and motivation.

It is critical to consider that play, across several forms, is differentially perceived for and afforded to children from different backgrounds,

especially Black children. Scholars suggest that Black children’s play can be curtailed based on negative stereotypes and perceptions of Black people. Specifically, this research indicates that play for Black children is limited by perceptions of boys and girls as being older than they are (i.e., adultification) and boys as being more guilty of a crime (i.e., criminalization), that there are fewer physical spaces in which to play in low-income communities of color, and that the schools most likely to be attended by low-income children of color in the early years are less likely to engage in play-based learning approaches—all of which leads to exclusion from or gaps in opportunities to play and learn through play (Goff et al., 2014; Epstein, Blake, & González, 2017; Bryan, 2019; Pinckney, Bryan, & Outley, 2021).

As an example of differential perceptions of children’s play, one study observed children’s pretend play as related to child adjustment, as assessed by researchers and reported by teachers. The researchers found no differences in children’s observed pretend play profiles or adjustment. But they did find that the association between child pretend play profiles and teacher-rated adjustment was moderated by race, such that teachers rated Black children with imaginative and expressive play profiles more negatively (e.g., more teacher–child conflict, less prepared for school, less peer acceptance), but rated White children with the same pretend play profiles positively (Yates & Marcelo, 2014). These negative perceptions create differential opportunities for play for Black children that can translate into harsher discipline and less emotional support in the classroom (Curenton et al., 2019).

Instructional quality is another important dimension of quality. A robust research base finds that high-quality instruction centered on responsive adult–child interactions, including open-ended questions, expansions, and recasts, implemented across an array of daily activities (e.g., book reading, meal time, pretend play), has a positive impact on child development, particularly in the areas of language and literacy (Stefanou et al., 2004; Reeve, 2009; Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012; IOM & NRC, 2015; Pianta, Downer, & Hamre, 2016).⁵ A focus on sequential, direct instruction in code-based characteristics of print has been identified as particularly important to literacy development (Spear-Swerling, 2019). Early writing experiences and instruction are also important, but research has found that preschoolers spend very little time on writing activities, and most of it is focused on fine motor skills and letter formation as opposed to the meaning of written language (Molfese et al., 2011; Pelatti et al., 2014). Other instructional characteristics, such as exposure to varied vocabulary and effective, hands-on math instruction, are also associated with improved outcomes for young

___________________

⁵ For an in-depth discussion of the child development and early learning and educational practices that foster language and literacy skills, see Chapters 4 and 6 of Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation (IOM & NRC, 2015).

children (Klein et al., 2011; Wasik & Iannone-Campbell, 2012; Whorall & Cabell, 2016; Starkey et al., 2022).

Embedded instruction, an approach that intentionally embeds sequenced and targeted learning opportunities across activities, is another key instructional concept with a robust evidence base. This approach has been used and evaluated most widely with children with disabilities. A core component of the model is robust planning, implementation, and evaluation of practices (Snyder et al., 2013, 2015). Research has found that this approach is associated with a range of positive developmental outcomes, including communication, preacademic, adaptive, literacy, and social outcomes (Division for Early Childhood & National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2009; Snyder et al., 2015).

Instructional quality is most commonly measured using global classroom quality instruments, such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), which considers three domains related to supporting learning and development—emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. Emotional support includes such dimensions as positive climate, teacher sensitivity, and regard for student perspectives. Classroom organization includes productivity, behavior management, and negative climate. Lastly, the CLASS domain specific to instructional support comprises instructional learning formats, content understanding, analysis and inquiry, quality of feedback, instructional dialogue, and student engagement. This domain assesses the promotion of children’s thinking through effective teaching (La Paro, Pianta, & Stuhlman, 2004; World Bank, 2017). Research has found that this domain of quality often scores the lowest for many ECE providers. Recent research on ECE programs considered to be high quality, including programs in Boston and Tulsa, showed higher scores in instructional support in particular (Mashburn et al., 2008; Phillips, Gormley, & Lowenstein, 2009; Moiduddin et al., 2012; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2013; Yoshikawa, Weiland, & Brooks-Gunn, 2016), suggesting that this may be an important indicator for increasing quality broadly and achieving greater child growth and better outcomes. Indeed, scholars posit that pairing focused and targeted curricula with coaching and professional development can help increase instructional quality in ECE settings (Yoshikawa, Weiland, & Brooks-Gunn, 2016).

Little research has examined the differences in instructional quality among various groups of children in the early years and the effects on academic outcomes. Some research has found that Black and Latino children are more likely to experience lower-quality care in general, and specifically in the CLASS domains of emotional and instructional support (Valentino, 2018; Aguiar & Aguiar, 2020). Higher scores on the CLASS have small to moderate positive effects on children’s educational outcomes, regardless of race/ethnicity (Soliday Hong et al., 2019), and some positive effects for

Black and Hispanic students (Burchinal et al., 2011; Downer et al., 2012), although there is also evidence of null effects (López, 2011; Stephens et al., 2023). More research is needed to examine the experiences of children of color with instruction in the early years, and the extent to which educators consider culture, language, and bias in their approaches to teaching and learning. Since the CLASS does not consider sociocultural factors associated with children’s race/ethnicity or language, new scales have been developed that incorporate more direct measures of these factors. They include the Classroom Assessment of Supports for Emergent Bilingual Acquisition (Figueras-Daniel & Li, 2021) and Assessing Classroom Sociocultural Equity Scales (Curenton et al., 2020).

Strong Family Engagement

The divestment that contributes to the opportunity gap for young people is a symptom of a system that does not always reflect the lived experiences and realities of families, which results in policies and practices that exacerbate inequities. As just one example, families that qualify for child care assistance at the determined state level are often required to stay beneath a certain income threshold to remain eligible for benefits, a requirement that can constrain their employment opportunities. Thus, for instance, some families have made the decision to decline a raise at their place of work so as to remain eligible for child care subsidies (Child Care Assistance Program [CCAP] funding) because the amount of their raise was not enough to cover the increased cost of child care resulting from the loss of benefits (Roll & East, 2014; Anderson et al., 2022). Had CCAP-eligible families been engaged in the design of these policies, they could have informed the development of a more equitable system that would not disincentivize the very type of upward mobility and empowerment that such programs strive to enable.

ECE and early education providers have long recognized the power of the family unit in promoting positive child outcomes and student success (Hayakawaa et al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2017, 2022). Family engagement, as defined within the field, entails shared responsibility among caregivers, schools, and other community organizations in supporting the learning and development of children (National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, 2009). Research has demonstrated strong correlations between family engagement and myriad positive outcomes for young children, including improved literacy and math skills and social-emotional learning that contribute to overall school readiness (Van Voorhis et al., 2013).

Although the definition of family engagement provides guidance for best practices (e.g., use of the term “shared responsibility” indicates the

need for meaningful relationships among the adults in a child’s life), family engagement has not received adequate attention and support among policy makers and practitioners interested in promoting quality in care and education for young children or closing opportunity gaps. Indeed, family engagement has often manifested as a set of standardized, transactional practices among caregivers, schools, and community organizations that present barriers to entry for lower-income families. For example, a 2017 Education Week Research Center analysis of federal survey data found that families with an annual income of more than $75,000 versus those making less than $30,000 were twice as likely to report having volunteered at a child’s school and reported attending nearly twice as many school meetings (Sparks & Harwin, 2017). These fixed, transactional practices do not foster authentic, equitable engagement that honors families as the most critical stakeholders in children’s lives.

An alternative approach—“families as partners”—with corresponding strategies is needed to engage meaningfully with families living in poverty and other divested groups. Quality family engagement requires a true partnership among caregivers, providers, and policy makers, ensuring that family voice and expertise inform providers’ practices and policies in much the same way that evidence-based practices can inform and enhance the care families provide at home (Grindal et al., 2016; Joo et al., 2020).

Although an emphasis on parent engagement also characterizes other programs discussed previously in this chapter (e.g., the Chicago Child–Parent Center program), the Head Start model has long been an exemplar of family engagement through efforts to promote parent leadership and advocacy and positive influences that parents can have on child development, including parenting behaviors, economic security, and psychological well-being (Yoshikawa et al., 2013). From its inception, the program was centered around family partnerships and community engagement, and in the years since, the program has developed a Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework that serves as a model for the broader ECE field. The program requires and funds family advocacy and leadership efforts, has established infrastructure with which to incorporate parental and familial input into programmatic functioning through parent councils and boards, supports the diverse array of needs families may have individually, and supports parents as their children’s first and most important teachers.

When considering family engagement, providers can ask themselves three simple questions: Are we doing to families? Are we doing for families? Or are we doing with families? A “families as partners” approach derives from working with families, following this general set of principles (Caspe, Lopez, & Hanebutt, 2019):

• Honor the family unit as the most critical stakeholder in the work of serving children. Take every concern a family raises seriously. Take every idea a family suggests into consideration.
• Do not assume the needs, strengths, or aspirations of families. Instead, develop an understanding of the resources needed and desired by each group of families, and make intentional investments in those resources.
• Affirm the identities of families. Learn about each family’s unique background.

When these principles are put into practice, family engagement exists as a dynamic, ever-evolving set of strategies for best supporting families in their unique contexts (Wintrop et al., 2021).

The following are examples of practices aligned with these principles that can be embedded into schools and community-based programs:

• Establishing clear expectations for communications with families. Informal connections with families should occur daily. Children’s data should be reviewed quarterly. Response to outreach from a family should occur promptly and within the same standard for response time that an organization sets for any stakeholder. Each point of connection with families should allow for at least 75% of the time to be spent in meaningful dialogue, as opposed to “sit and get” meetings where families serve as passive participants.
• Creating multiple modalities for communicating with families and engaging them in the decision-making processes of the school or program. In family policy meetings, spend time as a group learning how resources are utilized within the organization, and provide time for families to advise on how those resources should be spent.
• When families articulate what resources are needed or how resources should be allocated, investing in high-leverage, targeted activities and materials that meet those needs. As an example, if a provider hears that families need more books in their home libraries, the organization can invest in culturally relevant, identity-affirming, and positive books for families to take home through literature “pop-ups.” This experience can then be systematized so that literature pop-ups happen consistently, with the associated book resources being made abundantly available.

These principles and practices are only guideposts. Most important, providers need to continually put the concept of “families as partners” into practice alongside families that are currently receiving services. Building systems and structures that allow for ongoing, relationship-based engagement

can break the cycle of transactional relationships and strengthen transformational partnerships.

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON CHILDREN’S OPPORTUNITY GAPS

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted families and schooling, including ECE in the United States. It must be noted that families of color, specifically Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, were the hardest hit by the pandemic across health, employment and income, and education. A September 2020 audit by HHS’s Office of the Inspector General found that 63% of child care centers and 27% of family child care providers had closed as a result of the pandemic (HHS, 2020). Among state-funded preschool programs that closed at the onset of the pandemic, 28 programs in 21 states required that remote learning be provided to all children, and four required this for some preschool children based only on program location (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021). In contrast, 31 programs did not require any virtual instruction.

Not surprisingly, the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool is estimated to have fallen from 54% in 2019 to 40% in 2020 (McElrath, 2021). Children in the lowest-income families had the lowest in-person preschool participation in the 2020–2021 school year, at just 14% compared with 42% of all other children. Thus a significant concern arising from the pandemic is the reversal or stagnation of any progress made in access to and equity in preschool, as is documented in the areas of access and funding in the most recent report on state preschool programs. That report shows that the pandemic erased a decade of progress in preschool enrollment in state-funded preschool programs, preschool special education, and Head Start (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2021).

As families shifted to adapt to all the changes in structure and family life resulting from the pandemic, prioritizing children’s learning became difficult. The disruption of ECE services forced families (particularly mothers) to take on additional child care responsibilities (NASEM, 2022). A comprehensive review of national, state, and local studies across the United States found that the pandemic exacerbated gaps in ECE participation (Ford, Kwon, and Tsotsoros, 2021; Weiland et al., 2021), with the decrease in enrollment being greater for low-income children (Weisenfeld, 2021) and for Hispanic and Black children (Cascio, 2021). A national survey found that even by spring 2021, participation rates remained quite low for Hispanic children (Jung & Barnett, 2021), and to date, child enrollment has not returned to the levels that existed before the onset of the pandemic (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

A robust research base finds definitively that access to high-quality ECE is associated with long-term positive outcomes spanning education, employment, and health, among other domains of life. The research is also clear, however, that the ECE system and early education have fallen short in realizing their promise. Indeed, the literature consistently finds that children from historically marginalized communities, including children of color, immigrant children, dual language learners, children with disabilities, and children from low-income households, among others, face significant inequities in opportunities for learning and education in formal settings—starting from the introduction of those opportunities (or lack thereof) in child care or preschool, and extending throughout these children’s educational trajectories.

Decades of evidence point to the potential of ECE to reduce the opportunity gaps in the earliest years of children’s lives and contribute to significant social returns. Yet despite this evidence, the nation has under-invested in expanding families’ access to high-quality ECE, with children of color, children from low-income families, children who speak languages other than English at home, and children with disabilities facing the greatest barriers to accessing high-quality, inclusive ECE experiences. None of the major publicly funded ECE programs have sufficient funding to serve all eligible children, and families with lower incomes are less likely to enroll their children in publicly funded child care, pre-K, or Head Start. Many of the policy decisions about funding levels, quality standards, and eligibility for public assistance stem from U.S. society’s historical view of ECE as a personal responsibility, a view that persists to this day. The younger the child, the lower is the level of public investment (as demonstrated, for example, by the shortage of infant–toddler care and low compensation for infant–toddler providers).

The underinvestment in ECE and in its workforce reflects a deeply racialized history. The work of child care has historically been performed disproportionately by Black, Latina, and Asian women for free or for minimal pay, as evidenced by a variety of metrics, such as the significant differences in pay between child care providers and other professionals with BAs. Today, still, ECE educators receive near-poverty-level salaries and minimal employment benefits, which affects their own health and wellness and the quality of services they can provide.

Most ECE investments in the United States are targeted to low-income children and families, but they have been far from sufficient to serve even all eligible children or ensure high-quality experiences for all children served. Access is further hampered by state and federal policies and systems that create administrative barriers to access, and communities of color and

immigrant families are disproportionately impacted by these administrative burdens. Moreover, those children who have access to publicly funded ECE programs have widely varying experiences within these systems. Children of color and children in low-income households are most likely to have lower-quality experiences compared with their wealthier, White counterparts as a result of underinvestment (historically and currently) in communities, programs, and specific segments of the ECE system and workforce; misguided policies; and lack of attention to culture, language, and bias and their effects on teacher–child relationships and instruction. In addition, certain populations are less likely to access publicly funded ECE programs.

Quality frameworks may sometimes be narrowly focused on standards that neglect issues and lived experiences that, uniquely or disproportionately, tend to affect children from historically marginalized communities, including Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American children; children with disabilities; children who speak a language other than English at home; immigrant children; and children from low-income communities. These neglected issues include structural biases, such as using English exclusively as the language of instruction, which disproportionately impacts children who speak a language other than English at home; harsh, exclusionary, and developmentally inappropriate discipline policies that disproportionately affect Black children, Indigenous children, and children with disabilities; and a lack of inclusion and appropriate accommodations, high-quality services, and supports for children with disabilities in general education and early learning programs. Global classroom quality measures that are aimed at addressing process quality and are often part of broader quality frameworks also fail to consider issues particularly important to the experiences of these populations, such as biases related to expectations, language, empathy, and challenging behavior that affect teacher–child relationships and teacher–child interactions. Yet even by these measures, differences across programs and geographic locations are stark and paint a bleak picture of opportunities for young children.

The lack of a coherent approach to ECE in the United States—with a predominant emphasis on work support over child development goals—results in inconsistent and scarce access to programs of varying quality. Today’s ECE system is a patchwork of chronically underfunded programs, defined by quality frameworks that are designed for different goals and fail to capture the experiences and needs of children from historically marginalized communities. Geographic differences in the proportion of children served by ECE highlight the effect of vastly differing state and local policies. Gaps in access are most pronounced for children from low-income families and those living in rural communities. Although more than 80% of parents report that they would utilize a universal pre-K system, current analyses show that about 5 million more preschool seats would be needed

to provide a universal system. The result is opportunity gaps experienced by children who do not have access to ECE, those who have access only to lower-quality programs, and those who face bias and differential treatment within learning systems.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.