我国学前教育长期存在“入园难”、“入园贵”问题。2010年后，中央大力推动学前教育发展，各级财政大幅度增加学前教育投入，但在“地方负责，分级管理”的学前教育管理体制下，学前教育的财政投入仍然主要由地方政府承担。各省份经济发展水平、财政能力和努力程度等因素的不同导致的家庭学前教育成本分担和负担水平的差异，需要深入研究。
家庭学前教育成本分担水平是指家庭支付的保育教育费占学前教育机构收入或支出的比例。家庭学前教育负担水平是指家庭支付给学前教育机构的保育教育费占家庭收入或支出的比例。本研究从多个视角，对2010年以来各省份家庭学前教育成本分担水平和负担水平进行了分析比较。从居民收入、市场结构和地方财政等维度对影响各省份家庭学前教育成本分担水平的因素进行理论和计量分析。通过统计描述和政府行为逻辑的理论分析，结合案例分析，揭示和讨论了各省份家庭学前教育负担水平以及差异。
主要结论如下：第一，2010年以来，全国家庭学前教育成本分担水平逐步下降，但负担水平不降反升。在2010-2019年间，全国家庭成本分担水平从55.0%下降到48.2%，家庭负担水平则从15.3%提高到18.3%。无论是家庭分担水平，或是家庭负担水平，均呈现出中部省份较高，东部省份和西部省份较低的“中部隆起”现象。不同省份间差异明显且在不断扩大。第二，家庭成本分担水平随居民收入的提高呈现出先上升后下降的趋势；地方政府财力、财政自给能力以及投入努力程度均与家庭成本分担水平呈负相关关系，中央转移支付对家庭成本分担水平具有显著的负向影响；增加公办园供给对家庭成本分担水平的影响取决于公办园的供给策略。第三，学前教育发展行动计划对政府学前教育投入的影响，更多通过扩大政府投入较低省份的投入实现，典型的地区是中部，但由于地方政府的财政实力不强，且缺乏中央的支持，在行动计划后期，政府投入的增速有所放缓，在一定程度上导致中部省份的家庭分担比例居高不下。第四，政府行为是影响家庭负担水平的重要原因。在不同的财政逻辑下，政府的学前投入策略直接关系到学前教育的供给结构，从而导致各省份家庭负担水平呈现差异。第五，全国城镇家庭学前教育负担水平高于农村，不同收入组家庭的负担水平相差悬殊，低收入组家庭负担水平远高于中高收入组，中低收入组家庭在城乡间的负担水平差异较为明显。从地域分布看，城镇高家庭负担省份集中在东北，低家庭负担省份以东部居多；农村低负担省份主要分布在中西部。
根据上述研究结论，提出如下政策建议：首先，坚持学前教育的普惠公益性，继续大力发展公办园和民办普惠园，优化学前教育供给。其次，合理调整地方政府的财政投入方向，增加对民办普惠园的财政投入，提高财政资金的配置效率。再次，优化学前教育财政转移支付资金的配置，在继续保持对西部地区转移支付力度的同时，增加对中部财力薄弱县域的转移支付，增加对低收入家庭的幼儿入园补助，缩小地区间和不同收入阶层间家庭成本分担与负担水平的差异，促进学前教育公平。

China has long faced the problems of difficulty in entering kindergartens and expensive kindergartens. Since 2010, the central government has been making significant efforts to promote the growth and improvement of preschool education, and all levels of finance have greatly increased investment in preschool education. However, under the local responsibility and hierarchical management system of preschool education management, the main body of financial investment in preschool education in China is still local governments. The differences in economic development level, financial capacity, and effort of various provinces have led to differences in the cost sharing and family burden of preschool education, which need to be further studied.
The level of cost sharing in early childhood education refers to the proportion of childcare and educational expenses paid by families relative to the income or expenditure of early childhood education institutions. The level of family burden in early childhood education refers to the proportion of childcare and educational expenses paid by families to their income or expenditure. This article analyzes and compares the cost sharing and family burden of preschool education across provinces in China since 2010 from multiple perspectives. The factors that influence the cost sharing of preschool education by families in various provinces are theoretically and quantitatively analyzed from the dimensions of household income, market structure, and local finance. Through statistical description and theoretical analysis of government behavior, combined with case analysis, the article reveals and discusses the level and differences of family burden of preschool education in each province.
The main conclusions are as follows: First, since 2010, the level of cost sharing for early childhood education among families nationwide has gradually decreased, but the burden level has increased instead of decreasing. Between 2010 and 2019, the national level of cost sharing by families decreased from 55.0% to 48.2%, while the burden level increased from 15.3% to 18.3%. Whether it is the level of cost sharing or the burden level, there is a phenomenon of higher levels in central provinces and lower levels in eastern and western provinces, known as the central uplift. The differences between provinces are significant and continuously widening. Second, the level of cost sharing by families shows a trend of initially rising and then falling as household income increases. The financial strength, fiscal self-sufficiency, and level of investment efforts of local governments are all negatively correlated with the level of cost sharing by families. Central transfer payments have a significant negative impact on the level of cost sharing by families. The impact of increasing the supply of public kindergartens on the level of cost sharing by families depends on the supply strategies of public kindergartens. Third, the impact of the Action Plan for Early Childhood Education Development on government investment in early childhood education is mainly achieved by expanding the investment in provinces with lower government input. The typical region is the central region. However, due to the weak financial strength of local governments and a lack of support from the central government, the growth rate of government investment has slowed down in the later stages of the action plan, leading to a persistently high proportion of cost sharing by families in central provinces. Fourth, government actions are an important factor influencing the level of family burden. Under different fiscal logics, the government's investment strategy in early childhood education directly affects the supply structure of early education, resulting in differences in the level of family burden across provinces. Fifth, the level of early childhood education burden for urban families nationwide is higher than that for rural families. There is a significant disparity in the burden level among families in different income groups, with low-income families experiencing a much higher burden than middle and high-income groups. The disparity in burden level between urban and rural areas is more pronounced for families in the middle-to-low income group. In terms of regional distribution, urban provinces with high family burden are mainly concentrated in the northeast, while provinces with low family burden are mostly located in the eastern region. Rural provinces with low burden are mainly distributed in the central and western regions.
Based on the aforementioned research findings, the following policy recommendations are proposed: Firstly, it is important to uphold the universal and public welfare nature of early childhood education and continue to vigorously develop public kindergartens and private inclusive kindergartens, optimizing the supply of early childhood education. Secondly, it is recommended to appropriately adjust the direction of financial investment by local governments, increase fiscal investment in private inclusive kindergartens, and improve the efficiency of financial resource allocation. Thirdly, it is advisable to optimize the allocation of fiscal transfer payments for early childhood education. While maintaining the level of transfer payments to the western regions, it is necessary to increase transfer payments to financially weaker counties in the central regions. This includes providing subsidies for enrollment in kindergartens to low-income families. These measures aim to reduce the disparities in cost sharing and burden levels among different regions and income groups, promoting equity in early childhood education. These policy recommendations seek to enhance the accessibility and affordability of early childhood education, promote equitable distribution of resources, and improve the overall quality of early childhood education in China.