Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Home sweet home?
Long-term educational outcomes of
childcare arrangements in Finland
TITA WP2 Meeting, Stockholm 21st Apri...
To be published in:
Blossfeld, H.-P., Kulic, N., Skopek, J. & Triventi, M. (eds):
Childcare, Early Education and Social In...
Day care in Finland
● One of the most universal day care systems in
the world
● A subjective right to all child under pre-...
The puzzle…
• 40 % + of children in home care
• Less than in any other Nordic countries with
less universal right to day c...
Why?
1. Home care allowances (cash for care):
government + municipalities
2. Normative claims:
• Families should have free...
The research questions
o Kids in home care doing better or worse in
education than day care kids? (=long term
outcomes)
o ...
Pre-school child care arrangements
in Finland, I
● Maternity/parental leave 9 months after birth +
father leave 54 days
● ...
Pre-school child care arrangements
in Finland, II
● Both heavily subsidized
o Day care free for low-income families, max. ...
Historical background
● Women’s movement in the mid-1960s,
employers worried in the late 1960s (1972 the
smallest birth co...
High quality requirements
● In day care centers: Children under 3 years: 1
teacher / 4 childr., older: 1 teacher / 7 child...
In practise
● High quality day care expensive for
municipalities (av. 63 € /day in 2012)
● Has lead to municipalities-topp...
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 & Mongsta...
Data
● Administrative register data, >15 % of pop.
● 13859 children born 1989-1990, matched with
both parents, yearly foll...
Child care type identified through
home care allowance
Home care allowance was only paid for under 3-
year-old children - ...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Around age 1
Around age 2
Around age3
Later or never
parental leave
home care
day care
pre-primary
age
Descriptive Statistics: childcare
Outcomes for analyses
● Continuing from comprehensive school to
further secondary education by age 17 (non-
drop out)
● Ge...
Explanatory factors
1. Gender
2. + Mother’s education and father’s education
(exogenous controls)
3. + Mother’s and father...
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....
Enrollment in secondary education
at age 17
M1: Clear selection
M2: Some positive association remaining
M3: All associatio...
General secondary degree at age 20
M1: Strong selection
M2: Clear positive association remaining
M3: Small or non. sig. as...
Entry into higher education at age 20
M1: Clear selection
M2: Some small positive association remaining
M3: Small or non. ...
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 ...
Summary
● Tertiary educated mothers most likely to choose
day care, low educated home care
● Models show positive effects ...
Meaning…
Home may be sweet for some but on average kids
do better if they try the wild side!
Thank You
Aleksi Karhula (aleksi.karhula@utu.fi)
Jani Erola (jani.erola@utu.fi)
Elina Kilpi-Jakonen (elina.kilpi-jakonen@u...
Extras
Erola, Karhula & Kilpi-Jakonen: Home sweet home? Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland
Erola, Karhula & Kilpi-Jakonen: Home sweet home? Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Erola, Karhula & Kilpi-Jakonen: Home sweet home? Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland

1,134 views

Published on

Jani Erola, Aleksi Karhula & Elina Kilpi-Jakonen: Home sweet home? Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland. Presentation at TITA WP2 seminar 21.4.2016

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Erola, Karhula & Kilpi-Jakonen: Home sweet home? Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland

  1. 1. Home sweet home? Long-term educational outcomes of childcare arrangements in Finland TITA WP2 Meeting, Stockholm 21st April Aleksi Karhula, Jani Erola & Elina Kilpi-Jakonen University of Turku
  2. 2. 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.
  3. 3. 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…)
  4. 4. The puzzle… • 40 % + of children in home care • Less than in any other Nordic countries with less universal right to day care
  5. 5. 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”)
  6. 6. 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?
  7. 7. 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 care o Often mixed for very small children o Day care includes: center or family care (80% vs. 20%)
  8. 8. Pre-school child care arrangements in Finland, II ● Both heavily subsidized o Day care free for low-income families, max. monthly cost around 250 € /month o Government home care allowance for first child 343 € / month until age 3, some municipalities topping ● Pre-primary at age 6, free of charge
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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 €)
  12. 12. Children in day care as a percentage of age group Source: Alila et al 2014, Statistics Finland 2015
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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)
  15. 15. 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)
  16. 16. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Around age 1 Around age 2 Around age3 Later or never parental leave home care day care pre-primary age
  17. 17. Descriptive Statistics: childcare
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. Explanatory factors 1. Gender 2. + Mother’s education and father’s education (exogenous controls) 3. + Mother’s and father’s unemployment, household income per consumption unit (partly endogenous controls)
  20. 20. Results?
  21. 21. 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*** 0.01 Around 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*** 0.02 Fourth 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
  22. 22. Enrollment in secondary education at age 17 M1: Clear selection M2: Some positive association remaining M3: All associations gone
  23. 23. General secondary degree at age 20 M1: Strong selection M2: Clear positive association remaining M3: Small or non. sig. associations
  24. 24. Entry into higher education at age 20 M1: Clear selection M2: Some small positive association remaining M3: Small or non. sig. associations
  25. 25. Heterogeneous Effects?
  26. 26. No statistically significant interaction with mothers education (on any outcomes)
  27. 27. Municipality fixed effects  No change  Suggests municipality top-up does not change outocomes – but influences absolute level of home care
  28. 28. 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)
  29. 29. Meaning… Home may be sweet for some but on average kids do better if they try the wild side!
  30. 30. Thank You Aleksi Karhula (aleksi.karhula@utu.fi) Jani Erola (jani.erola@utu.fi) Elina Kilpi-Jakonen (elina.kilpi-jakonen@utu.fi)
  31. 31. Extras

×