蜜桃影视

Elliot鈥檚 Provocations unpacks current events in the early learning world and explores how we can chart a path to a future where all children can flourish.

For my last column of the year, I want to touch on a less-discussed but not-unimportant question: what in the heck should we call the care and education of children during the first five years of their life? Is it child care? Is it early childhood education? Is it something else?

It may be obvious, but . They elicit responses in people鈥檚 minds that can prime them to support or reject certain ideas. For instance, believe the switch from focusing on LGBTQ+ domestic partner benefits and other legal elements, to the core emotional appeal that 鈥渓ove is love鈥� helped spark one of the most in recent U.S. history.

I鈥檓 of two minds when it comes to the early childhood question. So, I thought it might be fun to stylize those minds and use them to explore the debate. The goal here isn鈥檛 to offer the right answer 鈥� again: I don鈥檛 know what the right answer is, if there is one! 鈥� but to help draw out the underlying tensions and further conversation. So, with your indulgence, I give you: Carol and Ed (get it?)

Carol and Ed: A Socratic Semantic Debate

Carol: Look, Ed, I think you鈥檙e a swell guy, but the fact is this sector is about child care. We are caring for children — wherever, whenever. There鈥檚 a learning component, for sure, but it鈥檚 more than that: it鈥檚 about relationships and nurturing these children to have the maximum human development possible. See, this is going to be a quick debate!

Ed: OK Carol, I hear you 鈥� and I think you鈥檙e swell, too 鈥� but let me poke a hole in your case before I get to mine. Do child care needs end at school entry?

Carol: No, of course not. There are before-school, after-school and summer needs.

Ed: Right. Well, the term 鈥渃hild care鈥� doesn鈥檛 specify that. So right away it鈥檚 confusing to the lay public! Early childhood education, on the other hand, is clean and crisp. It says what it is.

Carol: That鈥檚 not the slam dunk you think it is. Watch this: early child care. Voila!

Ed: 鈥淓arly child care鈥� is鈥� clunky.

Carol: It鈥檚 literally shorter than early childhood education! And anyways, early childhood education sounds so鈥� formal. Most people don鈥檛 think of sending their one-year-old to school.

Ed: I鈥檒l grant that, but education doesn鈥檛 have to mean school. You can get education at an in-home early childhood program, too.

Carol: Now who鈥檚 using confusing terms?

Ed: I mean, sure, it鈥檚 not perfect. But let鈥檚 talk about what we鈥檙e talking about: we need a term that is widely understood and also conveys ideas which will build public and political support, right?

Carol: Sure.

Ed: OK, well, between 鈥榗are鈥� and 鈥榚ducation,鈥� which one is a constitutional right in every state and a fully publicly-funded system that gets $700 billion a year, and which one is seen as welfare and is constantly fighting for scraps?

Carol: That鈥檚 not fair! Care has been systemically devalued for centuries, coded as 鈥渨omen鈥檚 work鈥� so that the economic system could hum along without having to pay for home labor. And that鈥檚 before getting into the of domestic work, such as the way that enslaved Black women were forced to care for their enslavers鈥� children, or how even after emancipation many were Even the earliest so-called 鈥榚arly childhood education鈥� programs 鈥� aka nursery schools 鈥� were from child care programs because the latter felt too 鈥榩oor.鈥� So you鈥檒l forgive America for having questionable ideas about the value of care. It doesn鈥檛 mean we shouldn鈥檛 or can鈥檛 reclaim the concept.

Ed: No one鈥檚 arguing care hasn鈥檛 been given short shrift. It鈥檚 atrocious. But from a practical standpoint, if the two choices are to try and revitalize a poorly-treated concept or take advantage of a robust one, why wouldn鈥檛 we go with the latter? We鈥檙e having a hard enough time getting care occupations 鈥� child care, elder care, care for individuals with disabilities 鈥� up to even a living wage. You really think we can get Americans to suddenly agree that care should be publicly funded as a middle-class profession? K-12 teachers should get paid more, but at least they make a solid salary with benefits! Meanwhile, public pre-K programs are the only universal(ish) early childhood programs that have won major support and funding, even in red states. That鈥檚 because, as sociologist Sandra Levitsky has written, . That was a decision based on communications research. Why not relax into the water?

Carol: I鈥檒l tell you why, it鈥檚 because 鈥渆arly childhood education鈥� has some big problems. Do we really want to march the school system back to the first few years of life? How is that developmentally appropriate? And it completely takes parents out of the equation. Levitsky also writes — let鈥檚 see, I鈥檝e got the quote here, 鈥渨hile considerable public discourse has focused on the educational development of three- and four-year-olds, the needs of working parents with babies are rarely mentioned at all. Perhaps more insidiously, the logic of 鈥榮ocial investment,鈥� which drove the political shift from child care to early childhood education, generally construes children as a 鈥榞ood investment鈥� in ways that implicitly suggest that women are not.鈥�

Ed: Look, there were some missteps in pushing down too much direct academic instruction into pre-K in the late aughts, I鈥檒l grant that. But play is making a comeback! And most systems are mixed-delivery now.

Carol: By 鈥渕ost systems,鈥� we鈥檙e excluding California — you know, the biggest state in the union, that would be the 40th-largest nation in the world if it was its own country? — which is currently ? And, while we鈥檙e at it, you still haven鈥檛 answered: does 鈥渆arly childhood education鈥� mean just pre-K or does it mean infants and toddlers too? Does it mean service hours outside the school day and school year?

Ed: It鈥檚 all education鈥�

Carol: Uh-huh, I can hear the conviction in your voice just as much as I can see the continued artificial split between preschoolers and infants/toddlers. That鈥檚 what an education frame gets you. Know what else it gets you?

Ed: Better polls? More funding?

Carol: Ha-ha. No, it gets you credentialization. There are costs to adopting the education frame. Our education system treats degrees as synonyms for skills, which is a position with a very questionable research backing. You can try to create policy backstops like substituting experience for degrees, but the fact is that you鈥檙e assuming a high risk of unintentionally discriminating against family child care providers, to say nothing of stay-at-home parents and relative caregivers. Parents and kids need a pluralistic system that meets their dynamic needs and preferences. I鈥檓 just not sure 鈥榚arly childhood education鈥� gets us there. I say the price is too high to pay.

[At this point, a third voice enters the conversation: Trey (get it??)]

Trey: Ed, Carol, you both make excellent points, and this is such an important debate! May I suggest an alternative that incorporates both perspectives?

Ed and Carol (looking at each other warily): Go ahead鈥�

Trey: Why not adopt both-and terminology? Many other nations call it Early Childhood Care and Education, or Early Childhood Education and Care. I personally like the simple Early Care and Education. It even has the same ECE acronym some people are already familiar with!

Ed: Do they call it that, though? I mean, I understand that鈥檚 what the official government documents might say, but do parents go around saying 鈥渙h, I had such a stressful time this morning getting my kid off to his early care and education center?鈥�

Carol: Well, to be fair, do U.S. parents say 鈥渙h, I had such a stressful time this morning getting my kid off to his early childhood education center?鈥�

Ed: No, they say 鈥減reschool鈥� or the dreaded D word —

Carol: Don鈥檛 say it鈥�

Trey: Uh-oh, he鈥檚 gonna say it鈥�

Ed: Day care.

Carol: Boo!

Ed: Here鈥檚 the problem. Day care sucks as a term. It鈥檚 not even accurate, since there are overnight programs. But it sticks because it is a simple one-word term that conveys a clear meaning. Same reason France uses 肠谤猫肠丑别 and Germany uses kita. I鈥檓 actually fine with early care and education, but no one鈥檚 going to use that popularly. So, if we don鈥檛 want day care to dominate, we should just take 鈥減reschool鈥� and apply it everywhere and to all ages. A center-based preschool. A church preschool. A family preschool.

Trey: OK, but I can already see Carol鈥檚 mouth opening to object. Can I try one other thought? What if we followed the U.K.鈥檚 lead and just called them 鈥溾��? That way the focus is on child development during that age period, not about any given setting.

Carol: I mean, I don鈥檛 hate it, but I don鈥檛 love it? It鈥檚 kinda bland. And it鈥檚 unspecific: aren鈥檛 things like pediatrics part of 鈥渢he early years鈥� too?

Ed: Yeah, I鈥檓 with you there.

Trey: Well at least I got you to agree about something!

[The debate in my head transitions to closing statements]

Ed: I am certainly sympathetic toward the need to massively improve how we value care in this country. The fact is, however, that if we want to have a rights-based system with universal access, the most efficient route is through fully embracing the phraseology of early childhood education and preschool. The body politic and politicians alike can easily understand the idea that if we publicly support K-12 education, and if learning begins at birth, we need to publicly support early childhood education as well. And it鈥檚 not just about political expediency! This is demanding work, and educators should be treated as the skilled professionals they are. That suggests to match. Putting these educators on the same level as elementary school educators is only proper. The sooner we stop wishing the world to be as we want it to be and accepting the world as it is, the sooner we can reach our common goals for early childhood. Thank you.

Carol: My respected opponent has fallen into the trap of rhetorically assuming that care work is not as inherently 鈥渟killed鈥� as education work. This is precisely the problem! A comprehensive birth-to-five system of care cannot be sliced and diced like this without losing the structural integrity of the whole. The top-line goal of this sector should , the top-line goal should be . Good child care not only helps kids develop the foundations of academic skills, it supports entire families: it allows parents to find the work-care balance that they prefer, have the family size they prefer, live where they prefer, be financially stable, have sources of community and parenting support鈥� all of which helps young kids to flourish, by the way! There are countless examples of terms shifting in the public mind, or professions like nursing finding a new prominence. I don鈥檛 think it will be simple to elevate child care to the level of respect and compensation it deserves, but if ever there was a fight worth fighting, this is one. And, let鈥檚 remember, we were one skittish Senator 鈥� or, arguably, one choosing to not, y鈥檏now, have an affair 鈥� from having hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into child care as we speak. Care matters. We should say so, right in the name.

Trey (quietly): I still think we should call it early care and education.

This story originally published on Early Learning Nation and is now archived on 蜜桃影视. Learn more here.