Payment in heaven: Can early childhood education policies help women too?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on research and activism on early childhood education and care in the area of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, we argue that the Indonesian government’s focus on early childhood has come at a cost to local women. Community-based early childhood programs are delivered by women whose work is unpaid or underpaid. Although early childhood education in the form of kindergarten has long existed in Indonesia, its extension to the very young through Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini or early childhood education programs for children aged 0–8 years is more recent. Yet, there are many contradictions in this attention to the very young child. While the programs are designed to empower young children and improve their chances of success in education, the community-based programs promoted by the government are delivered through the work of women who may be denied these same benefits. Based on our separate researches, local women offer their services in early childhood education for a variety of reasons: they believe in these programs, they feel pressured to support their communities, or they desire to improve their own chances, and often all three. Yet, the opportunity to gain more education and to become a certified teacher is extremely limited for these women. As a result, they are trapped in unskilled, low, or no-waged work. While this contradiction can be described as a result of neoliberal policy, it has been the long-standing practice of the Indonesian state to depend on women’s “volunteered” labor to deliver social service programming. Here, we challenge whether this is “neoliberal” policy or just a continued disregard for the value of the care labor in social reproduction and the simultaneous relegation of women to the “informal” sphere. We ask, what kind of policy options exist for linking the improvement of children’s education and women’s education simultaneously?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".