erola, karhula & kilpi-jakonen: home sweet home? long-term educational outcomes of childcare...

Home sweet home?Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland

TITA WP2 Meeting, Stockholm 21st April

Aleksi Karhula, Jani Erola & Elina Kilpi-JakonenUniversity of Turku

To be published in:

Blossfeld, H.-P., Kulic, N., Skopek, J. & Triventi, M. (eds):

Childcare, Early Education and Social Inequality– A Cross-national Perspective

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Day care in Finland

● One of the most universal day care systems in the world

● A subjective right to all child under pre-primary age (6yrs)

● Currently does not exclude any subgroups (children of unemployed parents, students etc…)

The puzzle…

• 40 % + of children in home care• Less than in any other Nordic countries with

less universal right to day care

Why?

1. Home care allowances (cash for care): government + municipalities

2. Normative claims:

• Families should have freedom to choose (political argument, see Hiilamo & Kangas 2013)

• Children suffer if taken care by someone else than mothers too early (attachment ”theorists”)

The research questions

o Kids in home care doing better or worse in education than day care kids? (=long term outcomes)

o Differences explained by selection into different child care arrangements by different family backgrounds?

Pre-school child care arrangements in Finland, I

● Maternity/parental leave 9 months after birth + father leave 54 days

● After that, either home or day careo Often mixed for very small childreno Day care includes: center or family care (80% vs.

20%)

Pre-school child care arrangements in Finland, II

● Both heavily subsidizedo Day care free for low-income families, max. monthly

cost around 250 € /montho Government home care allowance for first child 343

€ / month until age 3, some municipalities topping● Pre-primary at age 6, free of charge

Historical background

● Women’s movement in the mid-1960s, employers worried in the late 1960s (1972 the smallest birth cohort since WWII)

● Law on day care in 1973● Subjective right of children introduced in

1990 for kids under 3 yrs, extended to kids under 6 yrs in 1996

● Gov. home care allowances 1991, day care subsidies cover private institutions in 1996

High quality requirements

● In day care centers: Children under 3 years: 1 teacher / 4 childr., older: 1 teacher / 7 childr.

● Formal teacher qualifications of at last some of the day care center staff required by municipalities (but not by private institutions)

● BUT: Family care: max 4 children but no formal requirements

In practise

● High quality day care expensive for municipalities (av. 63 € /day in 2012)

● Has lead to municipalities-topped home care allowances (in 2012 max 264€ / child, av. 148 €)

Children in day care as a percentage of age group

Source: Alila et al 2014, Statistics Finland 2015

Previous studies

● Not much on child outcomes in Finland● But several in other Nordic countries, e.g.:

o Havnes & Mongstad 2011, 2014 (NO): subsidized day care has positive effects on low-inc. families, negative in high-income

o Esping-Andersen et al 2012 (DEN): subs . day care positive effects on low-income children

o Datta Gupta & Simonsen 2009 (DEN): No difference between home and day care in early cognitive outcomes

Data

● Administrative register data, >15 % of pop.● 13859 children born 1989-1990, matched with

both parents, yearly follow-up to 2010● Child care types according to paid home care

allowances (government + municipalities)● Excluded children:

● With divorced, separ. or single parents at age 3● With under 1 year-old siblings (as day care could

not be identified for them)

Child care type identified through home care allowance

Home care allowance was only paid for under 3-year-old children - cannot identify day care for older children

Home care allowance

No Children in public day care

Yes At home (or minority in private day care)

Around age 1

Around age 2

Around age3

Later or never

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

home careday carepre-primarySeries5

age

Descriptive Statistics: childcare

Outcomes for analyses

● Continuing from comprehensive school to further secondary education by age 17 (non-drop out)

● General secondary degree at age 20● Entry into higher education at age 20

Explanatory factors

1. Gender2. + Mother’s education and father’s education

(exogenous controls)3. + Mother’s and father’s unemployment,

household income per consumption unit (partly endogenous controls)

Results?

M1a M2a M3a M1b M2b M3b M1c M2c M3c

Age of entry into public day care (ref. Later or never)Around the age of 1 0.01*** 0.01 -0.00 0.08*** 0.03*** -0.01 0.07*** 0.02** 0.01

Around the age of 2 0.03*** 0.02*** 0.01 0.14*** 0.06*** 0.02 0.09*** 0.03*** 0.01Around the age of 3 0.01** 0.01 0.00 0.10*** 0.05*** 0.02* 0.07*** 0.03*** 0.02*

Female (ref. Male) -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.16*** 0.16*** 0.16*** 0.10*** 0.10*** 0.10***Mothers education (ref. Less)

Upper secondary education 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.12*** 0.11*** 0.10*** 0.10***Higher education 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.29*** 0.25*** 0.23*** 0.21***

Fathers education (ref. Less)

Upper secondary education 0.02*** 0.02*** 0.06*** 0.06*** 0.04*** 0.04***Higher education 0.03*** 0.03*** 0.27*** 0.22*** 0.18*** 0.15***

Fathers unemployment (ref. Not unemployed) -0.01 -0.04*** -0.05***Mothers unemployment (ref. Not unemployed) -0.01*** -0.05*** -0.03***Houdehold income per consumption unit (ref. Lowest)

Second quantile 0.01 0.01 -0.01

Third quantile 0.02** 0.05*** 0.02Fourth quantile 0.02*** 0.10*** 0.05***

Highest quantile 0.01 0.18*** 0.07***

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Table 2. Logistic regression models of between the age of entry into the public day care and educational outcomes in the early adulthood (results as average marginal effects (AME); N = 13859)

Dependent variable:

Entry into secondary education at age 17

General secondary degree at age 20

Entry into higher education at age 20

Source: Own calculations based on the data set from Statistics Finland

Enrollment in secondary education at age 17

M1: Clear selectionM2: Some positive association remainingM3: All associations gone

General secondary degree at age 20

M1: Strong selectionM2: Clear positive association remainingM3: Small or non. sig. associations

Entry into higher education at age 20

M1: Clear selectionM2: Some small positive association remainingM3: Small or non. sig. associations

Heterogeneous Effects?

No statistically significant interaction with mothers education (on any outcomes)

Municipality fixed effects

No change Suggests municipality top-up does not change

outocomes – but influences absolute level of home care

Summary

● Tertiary educated mothers most likely to choose day care, low educated home care

● Models show positive effects for day care even after controlling for parental education, weakest for those entering day care at the age of 1

● Differences by mother’s education small in last models = effects mediated through income and labor market attach. of parents (=overcontrolling)

Meaning… Home may be sweet for some but on average kids do better if they try the wild side!

Thank YouAleksi Karhula (aleksi.karhula@utu.fi)

Jani Erola (jani.erola@utu.fi)Elina Kilpi-Jakonen (elina.kilpi-jakonen@utu.fi)

Extras