“We Don’t Close:” Reimagining Supports for Early Learning Systems
/by Michael Matsunaga and Kimberly Braxton
“The first thing was that it was just sudden. It was a big shock—I think for us as educators, but for our families as well, because we don’t close. We’re open every day except for very major holidays... The initial closing was supposed to be for a couple of weeks, and we anticipated coming back a couple weeks later, and then that didn’t happen. There wasn’t any kind of plan to go virtual or how to do distance learning especially with early learning.”
2020 saw an early childhood education system disrupted severely by COVID-19. And now, two years into a global and prolonged pandemic, essential workers in early learning are facing similar agonizing concerns. In a public health climate where the only certainty is uncertainty, providers of early care and education have been in almost constant flux in serving families, supporting young learners, and sustaining their workforce and businesses.
As evaluators, from Fall 2020 to Spring 2021 we spoke with national, state, and local early learning practitioners, advocates, and state system leaders on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to help identify ways to rebuild early learning into a system that is better able to withstand shocks to its operations. Through interviews, along with a research review, we sought to answer questions like: What were the particular impacts of the pandemic on the existing early learning infrastructure? What enabled response and recovery during the crisis and where can the system gain strength? What will it take to collectively build a more resilient early learning system moving forward? (Read our report in full here.)
The disruption in the system was especially felt by marginalized communities, where affordable childcare deserts prevailed before the pandemic, increasing the likelihood that these families would not find care within their community during widespread closures. These shutdowns also uniquely affected Black, Latina, and immigrant women—who are more likely to work with children from infancy through age five through their employment at early care and education centers and in home-based childcare settings.
Why were early learning systems especially vulnerable to service disruption when the pandemic hit? Three themes emerged from our interviews and scan of both media and literature. First, these systems already operate under a great degree of financial uncertainty. Second, early learning has been historically devalued by the public relative to K12 education. And third, providers and families lack a strong voice in policymaking. Despite these vulnerabilities, we found that system actors were nevertheless able to come together productively in a moment of severe crisis to regain stability. We found that four main elements enabled initial response and recovery:
Well-networked community-based organizations. CBOs mobilized to expand services in short order, and local networks leveraged established relationships with families and providers to quickly disburse resources and share information.
Community-centered leadership. Effective leadership demonstrated knowledge of the needs grounded in proximity to providers and families and showed willingness and ability to adapt quickly as new and unforeseen challenges emerged.
Flexible resource policies. Local organizations that could use their established networks were able to move funding expeditiously. Cross-agency collaboration led to expedited allocation of funding from state governments. Autonomous funding environments that prioritized local decisions put providers in control of where and how to allocate resources.
Useful data supporting learning. Public officials and local organizations leveraged valid, reliable data to inform decisions and strategies, improve programs and services for families, advocate for policy changes and funding, and communicate broadly. Existing investments in data systems and infrastructure supported response and recovery by documenting the pandemic’s impact and informing decisions, as well as creating a learning agenda to increase understanding of impacts over time.
Response and recovery are critical, but can also be a return to a system burdening particularly marginalized communities and a workforce of mostly low wage and vulnerable providers. How can early learning systems provide high quality supports to children and providers and become more stable, resilient, and just? State system leaders and funders can learn from what worked in a time of crisis, and resource systemic change that supports a sustainable, thriving early learning systems. We found several themes in our research and interviews, and propose the following action steps:
State system leaders can support:
Centering provider and family voices. Center provider and family voices in decision-making processes focused on early learning policies—for example, by liaising with intermediary organizations that serve as a bridge between state agencies and communities.
Accessibility and affordability: Make high-quality childcare and Pre-K widely accessible and affordable for all families by increasing public funding streams to minimize, or remove, the financial burden of daycare and expanding free and affordable childcare and Pre-K options.
Workforce improvements: Improve working conditions for early learning practitioners by standardizing family-sustaining salaries and benefits.
Philanthropy can support:
“Our conversations about recovery and rebuilding [are] to not go back to the way the system was. Really, let’s dismantle it and let’s rebuild a new system that truly centers the experiences of families and particularly Black and brown families, so that it becomes a system of healing versus harming.”
Long term, flexible funding and technical assistance for advocacy and community organizing.
A robust research agenda that assesses short- and long-term impacts that the pandemic has had and continues to have on children’s academic and social emotional development; evaluates the benefits of public funding on early learning; highlights early learning decision making representation in states and districts; and assesses the effects of wage and benefit improvements across early learning systems.
Initiatives that shift public narratives about early learning so that it is considered a “public good.”
Relationship building through convenings, and access to bring disparate voices together to jointly consider challenges, opportunities, and solutions within local early learning systems. This can include bridging community voices—from families, providers, businesses, and community-based organizations—with policy makers. It may also include connecting institutions from the private and public sectors, who both share a stake in early learning policy but may differ on priorities.
