From Crib To Classroom: Evidence from California’s 2004 Paid Family Leave Policy Open Access

Rajan, Sushmita (Spring 2026)

Permanent URL: https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/k3569607v?locale=en
Published

Abstract

Early parental leave has been associated with improved child development internationally, yet evidence in the United States remains limited. This study examines the impact of California’s Paid Family Leave (CA-PFL) program on fourth-grade student achievement, using NAEP math and reading scores from 2003 to 2022. Employing a difference-in-differences approach, California is compared with states that did not implement paid family leave policies. The result reveal CA-PFL is not associated with meaningful changes in math achievement, but it suggests modest improvements in reading scores, particularly among all, Hispanic and economically disadvantaged student subgroups. These gains are consistent with developmental research showing that early literacy skills are more sensitive to parental time and home language environments than early math skills. Overall, the findings suggest that while paid family leave may enhance home environments in ways that support literacy development, its detectable effects on academic outcomes nearly a decade later are hard to detect. The study underscores both the potential and the limitations of early-life policies in shaping long-run educational trajectories. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between early-life policies and long-term developmental outcomes.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Paid Family Leave in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

California Paid Family Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Literature Review 6

Global Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

California Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Study Objective 10

Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Data 12

Methods 14

Effect Size Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Mathematics Scores Results 17Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Difference-in-Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Reading Scores Results 24

Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Difference in Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Effect Sizes 31

Discussion 34

Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Conclusion 37

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement
  • Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
School
Department
Degree
Submission
Language
  • English
Research Field
Keyword
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor
Committee Members
Last modified

Primary PDF

Supplemental Files