Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Education Economics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harvard economist urges Massachusetts to prioritize early-educator pay before rapid slot expansion
Summary
Dr. Jeffrey Liebman told the EEC board that market failures leave families unable to afford care and providers unable to recruit staff, recommending wage-first reforms paired with quality investments and matched voucher expansion; his analysis estimates roughly $37,100 in public spending per young child and finds strong latent demand.
Dr. Jeffrey Liebman, director at Harvard's Rappaport Institute, told the Department of Early Education and Care board that Massachusetts should sequence reforms for early education by stabilizing educator pay first and then expanding slots and subsidies.
Liebman said his economic analysis — built on new provider-level data from the state's C3 system and a MassInc survey of about 1,000 Massachusetts mothers — assumes policy will build on the existing provider base, avoid crowding out current funding, and align short-term steps with long-term goals. "It looks to me like we're spending about 37,100 dollars in terms of public spending per child," he told the board, comparing that to roughly $20,000 per K–12 pupil and arguing the figure shows the distribution of current public investments.
Why it matters: Liebman argued that three market failures explain gaps in access and quality: affordability barriers for lower-income families; liquidity constraints that prevent parents from borrowing against future earnings; and the prevalence of small providers that face high risk when adding capacity. He said those failures make government action necessary to secure both enough slots and the quality of care that research shows delivers high long-term returns.
Key findings and recommendations: Liebman presented enrollment and survey evidence that demand outstrips supply (about 52% of young children in formal care overall; age-specific rates were about 24% for infants, 40% for toddlers and 71% for preschoolers). His October survey found that among parents not currently using paid childcare, 80% would use formal care if it were free, and among users 70% would like more hours. On workforce, he reported roughly 40,000 early educators in spring 2024 with a median hourly wage of about $21.50. He recommended a policy sequence: raise wages first (with program rules so subsidies increase worker pay, not employer margins), invest in training and credentialing tied to higher pay, then add slots and scale subsidies in parallel so families can use newly available capacity.
On program design, Liebman warned against expanding access without attending to quality, citing studies from Quebec and Tennessee where rapid universal expansion without commensurate quality supports led to worse outcomes. He pointed to Washington, D.C.'s early-educator pay fund as a model for tying subsidies to wage floors and presented illustrative budget figures (one illustrative parity scenario produced a cited ~ $500,000,000 annual state cost estimate).
Board members pressed on study details, including the representativeness of cited Harvard Education study samples and whether cash benefits or expanded leave (FMLA-style options) might better serve families of very young infants; Liebman said his survey included hypothetical tradeoffs and that more choice for parents could be efficient for the youngest ages.
What comes next: Liebman said his team will publish a fuller survey report in the coming weeks. Board members and staff signaled they will use the new C3-enabled data and Liebman's recommendations to inform parallel work on rates, workforce supports and access targets.
