Governance of Early Care and Education Politics and Policy in France and Sweden

1. Governance of Early Care and EducationPolitics and Policy in France and Sweden Michelle J. Neuman, Ph.D. Columbia University EECERA Conference, Prague – 31 August, 2007 Research funding from: German Marshall Fund of the U.S., American-Scandinavian Foundation, Council for European Studies/Florence Gould Foundation, Teachers College Office for Policy Research, and Columbia University Public Policy Consortium.

2. Rationale for the Study • Why governance of ECE? • Why France and Sweden? • Why 1980-2005?

3. Three Institutional Dimensions of ECE Governance

4. Case Selection

5. Research Questions • How does the national context influence ECE governance? • Which actors and ideas (politics) benefit under different institutional arrangements? • What are the consequences for ECE policy outcomes (quality, access, coherence)?

6. Conceptual Framework: Governance of Early Care & Education ECE Politics 2 National Context ECE Governance ECE Policy Outcomes 1 3 Note: Numbers refer to research questions

7. Research Design • Data collection: Fieldwork - Archival and document research - Semi-structured interviews • Comparative, qualitative case study analysis  Today: Focus on decentralization findings

8. (De)centralization of ECE in France and Sweden: Origins and Process

9. Conceptual Framework: Decentralization of ECE ECE Politics National Context Decentralization ECE Policy Outcomes

10. France: Limited and Incremental Institutional Change in Ed. System • Strong Republican values include centralization • Since 19th century, preschool part of education system • Early 1980s, Socialists initiated ed. decentralization • 1989 – legal right to preschool; universal coverage 3-5 • Since 1990, few administrative reforms to preschools

11. France: Universal Coverage of 3-5s in Preschools by 1990 Source: OECD

12. France: Decentralization and Diversification for Infants-toddlers • Child care linked to health and social policy domains • 1981 - Expansion of crèches = national priority • 1986 – Decentralized child care administration • No clear legal responsibility for child care • 1988 – “childhood contracts” provide incentives to local authorities to expand and improve provision

13. France: Paradox of “Free Choice” • Since 1990s – rhetoric of “free choice” • Focus on supporting family day care and nannies • More generous long paid parental leave policies • Concern with unemployment underlies policy • Recent reforms seek to expand private provision

14. France: Most Children under 3 cared for by Parents or a Family Day Care Provider Drees: 2002

15. France: Geographic Disparities in Crèches

16. Sweden: “Educare” Approach • Early childhood – key part of welfare state • 1970s and 80s – Expansion of local child care, centralized funding, and regulations • 1991-1994 - Non-socialist government • Rising unemployment & large budget deficits • Supported private for-profit providers • Created a “care” allowance instead of formal services

17. Sweden: Shift to Goal-Governing • 1991 – Local Government Act = shift from central rules to “goal governing” of ECE • Earmarked funds  block grants to municipalities • 1995 – legal requirement for municipalities to provide child care to 1-6 year olds with working parents • Local governments facing budget crunch responded with higher fees and lower quality standards

18. Sweden: Recentralization? • 1995 - Return of Social Democrats to government • Improved economy, less unemployment • 1996-2003 – “Lifelong learning” reforms • Shift all ECE to Ministry of Education • Preschool curriculum – pedagogical steering • Universal preschool for 4 and 5 year olds • Maximum fee to rectify disparities in local fees • Targeted funding to steer decentralized system

19. Sweden: Increasing Proportion of Children Enrolled in Preschool since mid-1970s

20. Comparative AnalysisConsequences for policy and politics

21. Consequences of Decentralization for Access • Geographical disparities - less in Sweden than in France • Greater parent “choice”, but may not benefit children • Family day care: • increase in France • decrease in Sweden

22. Sweden: More Families Choosing Preschool Over Family Day Care, 1975–2003 Source: Skolverket

23. France: Rising Numbers of Authorized and Employed Family Day Care Providers Source: DREES, 2003

24. Consequences of Decentralization for Quality • Deregulation = larger group sizes and child-staff ratios in Sweden • Targeted financial incentives support can quality improvement Deregulation

25. Consequences of Decentralization for Coherence • Some improved local coordination across ECE services • More challenging in France because of different levels of responsibility – 2 strong sectors • Lack of coherence between individual and group child care raises concerns about child well-being

26. Implications • Decentralization raises serious equity concerns • Local politics and resources determine services available to families • Shifts political focus to new actors and institutions • Freedom and democracy = the need for local capacity • National steering & targeted funding reduce inequities Institutional history, economic context, and ideology play roles  France and Sweden on different paths