Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Early Childhood Education Activities and Care Arrangements of Disadvantaged Children in Germany

  • Published:
Child Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine how children aged zero to 6 years with migration background and those who live with lone parents, or on low income or social assistance differ from other less disadvantaged groups in their use of formal ECEC services and non-formal education activities. Previous studies have shown that attendance rates are lower for children in some of these groups, who might benefit disproportionately from high-quality ECEC services. We contribute to this literature by providing a more differentiated analysis separately for children of different ages in East and West Germany, respectively. Furthermore, we examine to what extent supply and demand side explanations may account for the observed disparities in ECEC attendance between disadvantaged groups and other children. We also draw on reasons given by mothers for their under 3 year old children’s non-attendance of ECEC institutions. The empirical analysis is based on the 2010 wave of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and the Families in Germany Study (FID). The results suggest substantially lower attendance rates of formal and non-formal education activities among children under three with migration background and for those from low income families. For children over three, social disparities in formal ECEC attendance are rather small, whereas they remain considerable in non-formal education participation for children of lone parents in East Germany and for children of low income or social assistance receiving families in West Germany.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the purpose of our analysis, we define ECEC activities as consisting of formal ECEC services, and of non-formal education activities, which cover other activities outside the family, such as the attendance of play groups or regular music or sport activities.

  2. Disadvantaged is a relative term. Usually it has been indexed by family circumstances, child characteristics, or a combination of both. Moreover, the term is often used in the same sense as the terms ‘children at risk’ or ‘children with special needs’. Following the socioeconomic literature, we focus on family circumstances rather than individual characteristics of the child in a narrow sense (e.g., OECD 2001, 2006).

  3. They are a particularly disadvantaged subgroup among low income families.

  4. For the importance of a good home learning environment, see e.g. Bradley (2002). Melhuish et al. (2008) argue that the provision of good quality ECEC services form 3 years of age are likely to produce further benefits, particularly when such services work closely with parents..

  5. For a more detailed description of the German system, see for instance, Spiess (2008).

  6. The following considerations are based on an analysis of the state laws regulating day-care centers and family-based day-care.

  7. Past studies have also shown that the relative burden created by parents’ contributions is higher for households in the lower income ranges than for households in the upper income range (see Kreyenfeld et al. 2007).

  8. There are various studies analyzing the attendance of ECEC services for different socio-economic groups, but do not apply multivariate approaches. For a very recent example, based on EU-SILC data, see Wirth and Lichtenberg (2012) who show that the attendance of ECEC services in almost all EU countries is higher for children of employed mothers and higher educated mothers. Moreover, in all analyzed European states children living in poor households have lower attendance rates than others.

  9. For studies which focus on the attendance of ECEC services in other countries with a universal ECEC service approach, see for instance, Driessen (2004).

  10. Similar results apply if poverty is measured by a concept of deprivation.

  11. For more information about the SOEP, see Wagner et al. (2007).

  12. For more details, see http://www.bildungspaket.bmas.de/ Download: August 2012.

  13. Children co-residing with a step-parent are not considered under this definition.

  14. We tested more nuanced differences in proximity and information on grandfathers but this variable showed the best fit with the data. As the question about proximity to relatives was not asked every year, we used answers from other survey years and assumed that the geographical distance had not changed substantially. Estimates should therefore be interpreted with some caution.

  15. Due to space constraints, only average marginal effects are displayed in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6. Tables with raw coefficients are available from the first author on request.

  16. The subsample of mothers in employment or education who receive social assistance is too small to be included as a separate variable in these models.

  17. Since April 2011 the federal government financially supports education activities of children from low income families, such as lunch at day-care centers and schools or music and sport classes (see http://www.bildungspaket.bmas.de/ Download: August 2012).

References

  • Anders, Y., Grosse, C., Rossbach, H.-G., Ebert, S., & Weinert, S. (2012a). Preschool and primary school influences on the development of children’s early numeracy skills between the ages of 3 and 7 years in Germany. School Effectiveness und School Improvement, published online Dec 2012.

  • Anders, Y., Rossbach, H.-G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., et al. (2012b). Home and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. M., Shinn, C., Fullilove, M. L., Scrimshaw, S. C., Fielding, J. E., Normand, J., et al. (2003). The effectiveness of early childhood development programs. A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(3), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, 975–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, D. M., & Currie, J. (2006). Pre-school care, day care, and after-school care: Who’s minding the kids? In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education, Volume 2 (pp. 1163–1278). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. H. (2002). Environment and parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting Volume 2: Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 281–314). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. H., & Vandell, D. L. (2007). Child care and the well-being of children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(7), 669–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büchner, C., & Spieß, C. K. (2007). Die Dauer vorschulischer Betreuungs- und Bildungserfahrungen—Ergebnisse auf der Basis von Paneldaten. DIW Discussion Papers, Nr. 687. Berlin.

  • Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early intervention for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 140–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, L. P. (2007). Persistent policy effects on the division of domestic tasks in reunified Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(4), 930–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag (2004). Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum qualitätsorientierten und bedarfsgerechten Ausbau der Tagesbetreuung und zur Weiterentwicklung der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe (Tagesbetreuungsausbaugesetz – TAG). Bundestags-Drucksache Nr. 15/3676 vom 6. September 2004.

  • Deutscher Bundestag (2005). Bildung, Betreuung und Erziehung vor und neben der Schule. Zwölfter Kinder- und Jugendbericht. BT-Drucksache 15/6014 vom 10.Oktober 2005. Berlin.

  • Deutscher Bundestag (2008). Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Förderung von Kindern unter drei Jahren in Tageseinrichtungen und in der Kindertagespflege (Kinderförderungsgesetz – KiföG). Bundestags-Drucksache Nr. 16/9299 vom 27.Mai 2008.

  • Driessen, G. W. M. (2004). A large-scale longitudinal study of the utilization and effects of early childhood education and care in The Netherlands. Early Child Development and Care, 174(7–8), 667–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, K. (2006). Wovon der Besuch einer Kindertageseinrichtung abhängt…! In M. S. T. Rauschenbach (Ed.), Kinder- und Jugendhilfereport 2. Analysen Befunde und Perspektiven (pp. 157–173). Weinheim: Juventa Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, K., & Peukert, C. (2006). … und raus bist du! In W. Bien, T. Rauschenbach, & B. Riedel (Eds.), Wer betreut Deutschlands Kinder. DJI Kinderbetreuungsstudie (pp. 62–81). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs-Rechlin, K. (2008). Soziale Hintergründe der Inanspruchnahme von Kindertagesbetreuung und finanzieller Aufwand der Eltern - Auswertungen des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels. In DJI (Ed.), Zahlenspiegel 2007. Munich.

  • Geier, B., & Riedel, B. (2008). Ungleichheiten der Inanspruchnahme öffentlicher frühpädagogischer Angebote. Einflussfaktoren und Restriktionen elterlicher Betreuungsentscheidungen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 10(Sonderheft 11), 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorey, K. M. (2001). Early childhood education: a meta-analytic affirmation of the short- and long-term benefits of educational opportunity. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900–1902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry preschool program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(114), 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hüsken, K. (2011). Kita vor Ort. Betreuungsatlas auf Ebene der Jugendamtsbezirke 2010. In Deutsches Jugendinstitut e.V. Abteilung Kinder und Kindertagesbetreuung (Ed.). Munich.

  • Immervoll, H., & Barber, D. (2005). Can parents afford to work?: Childcare costs, tax-benefit policies and work incentives. In OECD (Ed.), Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers.

  • Karlson, K. B., Holm, A., & Breen, R. (2012). Comparing regression coefficients between same-sample nested models using logit and probit : a new method.Sociological Methodology, 42, 286–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karoly, L. A. (2012). Toward standardization of benefit-cost analysis of early childhood interventions. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(1), 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2007). Kinderbetreuung und soziale Ungleichheit. In R. Becker & W. Lauterbach (Eds.), Bildung als Privileg - Erklärungen und Befunde zu den Ursachen von Bildungsungleichheit (pp. 99–123). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., & Krapf, S. (2010). Soziale Ungleichheiten und Kinderbetreuung - Eine Analyse der sozialen und ökonomischen Determinanten der Nutzung von Kindertageseinrichtungen. In R. Becker & W. Lauterbach (Eds.), Bildung als Privileg (pp. 107–128). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M., Spieß, C. K., & Wagner, G. G. (2007). A forgotten issue: distributional effects of day care subsidies in Germany. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11, 159–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, C. (2006). Institutionelle Kinderbetreuung. Erschwinglich für alle? In W. Bien, T. Rauschenbach, & B. Riedel (Eds.), Wer betreut Deutschlands Kinder? DJI Kinderbetreungsstudie (pp. 106–121). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R. W. (2007). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melhuish, E., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Phan, M. (2008). Effects of home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and numeracy in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 95–114. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00550.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry. Results from the NICHD Study of early child care. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 133–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Starting strong I. Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Starting strong II. Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., et al. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72, 1534–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regionaldatenbank Deutschland (2012). Arbeitsmarktstatistik der Bundesagentur für Arbeit. https://www.regionalstatistik.de. Accessed 30 June 2012.

  • Rosenfeld, R. A., Trappe, H., & Gornick, J. C. (2004). Gender and work in Germany: before and after reunification. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmiade, N., & Spieß, C. K. (2010). Einkommen und Bildung beeinflussen die Nutzung frühkindlicher Angebote außer Haus. DIW Wochenbericht, 45, 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, M. A. (1990). Diagnosing and dealing with multicollinearity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 12(2), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiess, C. K. (2008). Early childhood education and care in Germany: the status quo and reform proposals. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, 67, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spieß, C. K., & Mühler, G. (2008). Informelle Förderangebote. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 10(Sonderheft 11), 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spieß, C. K., Berger, E. M., & Groh-Samberg, O. (2008). Overcoming disparities and expanding access to early childhood services in Germany: Policy Considerations and Funding Options. Florence.

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (Ed.). (2011). Kindertagesbetreuung regional 2010. Ein Vergleich aller 412 Kreise in Deutschland. Wiesbaden.

  • Stiftung, B. (2012). Ländermonitor 2012. Frühkindliche Bildungssysteme aller Bundesländer im. Gütersloh: Vergleich.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010). Administration for Children and Families. Head Start Impact Study (Vol. Final Report). Washington, D.C.

  • Vandell, D., Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L., Vandergrift, N., & the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development, 81(3), 737–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German socio-economic panel study (SOEP) - scope, evolution, and enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127(1), 139–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, H., & Lichtenberg, V. (2012). Form der Kinderbetreuung stark sozial selektiv. Informationsdienst Soziale Indikatoren (ISI), 48, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrohlich, K. (2006). Labor supply and child care choices in a rationed child care market. DIW Discussion Papers.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Institute for Economic Research, Mohrenstrasse 58, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Pia S. Schober & C. Katharina Spiess

  2. Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    C. Katharina Spiess

Authors
  1. Pia S. Schober
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Katharina Spiess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pia S. Schober.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 Descriptive statistics
Full size table
Table 8 Marginal effects of logistic model of mothers’ agreement with reasons for not using formal ECEC services for children aged under 3 years in West Germany (standard errors in parentheses)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schober, P.S., Spiess, C.K. Early Childhood Education Activities and Care Arrangements of Disadvantaged Children in Germany. Child Ind Res 6, 709–735 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-013-9191-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-013-9191-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation