Michelle J. Neuman Columbia University Hildesheim, Germany 19-21 October, 2006

1. THE POLITICS OF (DE)CENTRALIZATIONEarly Childhood Services in France and Sweden Michelle J. Neuman Columbia University Hildesheim, Germany 19-21 October, 2006

2. Rationale for the Study • Why France and Sweden? • Why 1980-2005? • Why decentralization?

3. Research Questions 1. What were the origins and process of decentralization in France & Sweden? 2. What were the consequences for politics and policy?

4. Research Design • Part of a larger study of governance • Data collection: Fieldwork - Document research - Semi-structured interviews • Comparative case study analysis

5. FRANCE

6. Limited and Incremental Change • Strong Republican values and centralization • Preschool part of ed system since 19th cent. • Socialists initiated decent. in early 1980s • Resistance of teacher unions • 1989 law – right to a place in école maternelle • Closer links between preschool and school • More (pre)school-based management

7. Decentralization & Diversification • Child care linked to health and social policy domains • Expansion of crèches = national priority in 1981 • Decentralization - child care a local political issue • CAF contrats-enfance in 1988 to provide incentives • No clear responsibility for child care • Rhetoric of “free choice” = shift toward more individual arrangements and long paid parental leave • Concern with unemployment underlies policy

8. Possible Consequences: Access Early Education: • Institutionalized with a strong constituency by 1970s • Universal (free) access of 3-5 year olds • Variation in enrolment of 2 year olds Child care: • Demand far exceeds supply of center places • Geographical disparities in funding, supply, and access • Non-profit provision expanding rapidly • “Free choice” is a myth esp. for low-income families

9. Proportion of children enrolled in French preschools by age, 1960-2002 Source: OECD

10. Primary child care arrangement for children under age 3 (2002) Source: DREES

11. Possible consequences: Quality Early Education • More integration with elementary ed • Better transitions…More school-like? Child care • Contrats-enfance support quality • More diverse and flexible forms of provision • National regulations still exist

12. Possible Consequences: Coherence • Some improved local coordination across care and education • Challenge because of different levels of responsibility – 2 strong sectors • Lack of coherence between individual and group child care arrangements

13. SWEDEN

14. “Educare” Approach • Early childhood – key part of welfare state • Expansion of services in 1970s and 1980s • Non-socialist government from 1991-1994 • Rising unemployment & large budget deficits • Supported private providers and care allowance

15. Shift to Goal-Governing • Child care = a municipal responsibility • Part of Local gov’t Act of 1991 • Earmarked funds —> block grants • Greater responsibility and decision-making to preschools and work teams • 1995 - requirement to provide child care • Economic crisis – higher fees, larger ratios

16. Recentralization? • Return of Social Democrats in 1994 • Improved economy, kept decentralization • Shift to Ministry of Education • Pre-school curriculum – pedagogical steering • Universal pre-school for 4 and 5 year olds • Max Taxa to rectify disparities in local fees

17. Possible consequences: Access • Higher access across age groups • More affordable for parents • Uneven distribution of public/non-public • Decline in family day care and open preschool • Some regional variation in supply

18. Number of children registered in child care 1975–2003 Source: Skolverket

19. Proportion of children ages 1-5 in preschool, 1980 - 2003 Source: Skolverket

20. Proportion of children 1-5 enrolled in pre-school (2003) Source: Skolverket

21. Possible consequences: Quality • Larger groups and higher child-staff ratios • Variation between/within municipalities • Higher staff training (but staff shortages) • Strengthened pedagogical task of preschool • Concerns about “schoolification”

22. Quality standards 1980-2003 • Average group size • 1980 – 13.0 children/group • 1990 – 14.0 children/group • 1995 – 16.7 children/group • 2003 – 17.0 children/group • Staff-child ratio • 1980 – 4.2:1 • 1990 – 4.2:1 • 1995 – 5.5:1 • 2003 - 5.4:1

23. Possible consequences: Coherence • Geographic variation in access & quality • Smoother transitions across ed. system • Challenging partnership - preschool & school • Tension between “care” & “education”? (Staffing, Opening hours, Pedagogical approach)

24. Implications: Politics & Policy

25. France Persistent division between care and ed Child care not a right Role in fighting unemployment “Free choice” = more individual arrangements Sweden Unified goals for system Support parent employment Gender equality Promote lifelong learning Less family day care Shifting Objectives of ECE  In both countries, universal approach to preschool

26. Role of the Economy • Decentralization  during economic crisis • Cost-shifting to lower government? • May have accelerated existing trend • Negative consequences for children • Recent Swedish policy - temporary retreat not significant welfare retrenchment • Less clear in France (also harder hit?)

27. New actors and institutions in policy process • Local elected officials • Program directors and staff • French CAFs • Teachers unions • Non-public providers • Parents??  Role of state has changed, not diminished

28. Diversity and Equity Concerns • Decentralization can meet local preferences • Local politics and resources determine services available to families • Parent “choice” may not benefit children • National steering may help minimize inequities

29. Conclusions… • Decentralization less of an impact on early childhood than on other sectors • Important for access, quality, and coherence • France and Sweden – on different paths • Institutional history, economic context, and political ideology play roles  Need to tease out these relationships