Since the pandemic, there has been a growing call for more affordable and accessible nurseries. The annual cost of putting children in daycare may be more than just college tuition, but maybe even mortgages for American families. Many advocates have called for the U.S. to fund a strong federal child care system, similar to most other developed countries.
The problem is that advocates have been framing the problem, and that is all wrong, researcher Elliot Haspel in his new book “Raising a country. ” Haspel, a senior fellow at the family policy think tank Capita, said the popular economic argument—who parents need childcare, feed their families and contribute to the economy—cannot convince enough voters to convince them of their importance.
Instead, parenting needs to be transformed into American values with many advantages, including family creation and even national security, Haspel said. The Los Angeles Times talks with Haspel about “raising a country”” He believes that the main argument that should attract all Americans. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interact with us Community-funded journalism As we delve into childcare, transitional kindergartens, hygiene and other issues affecting children from birth to 5 years old.
What do you hope Will the book be used to help advocates build more effective parenting campaigns?
The pandemic’s importance to childcare is very bright, and we’ve seen more attention from the Blue and Red countries, as well as Republicans and Democrats. But this does not necessarily require large-scale transformative policy changes.
My argument is that part of the reason is due to the way we structure the problem. If we continue to talk about it as advocates, mainly private goods that help parents work, then we won’t get where we need to go. The script doesn’t work. I think we have to change things.
Why do you say that popular economic arguments are valid but “morally poor”?
There are many things that can help people get to work and provide financial services to their families. I’ll take the car as an example. In most parts of this country, using a car is a necessary step to get to work… but we didn’t think of it [having a] Cars are moral rights. We see it as a private service or commodity that must be figured out. And if you have trouble figuring this out, you won’t be able to really seek help from the government.
When we talk about something economically, it really doesn’t have much moral value. But when you consider the rights of public schools (which, by the way, can also help people get to work and put roofs on their heads and help businesses be productive and efficient — there is a lot deeper reason to spend $800 billion in public funds a year. It’s more about what it means to families, communities, and the country as a whole.
How do you get people excited about public funding for public care when there are no children or child care is no longer needed?
I think it’s hard for most people to make a spiritual leap, “I need to have strong schools in my community.” Voters approve most of the time in the community nationwide, which requires voters without children. But because we don’t assert that the broader value of child care and all the ripple effects, it’s hard for people to see themselves.
Everyone has their own interests [child care]even if they don’t understand it yet. How many people know that ambulance services could fail if first responders are unable to go to work due to parenting rupture? Someone may be over 80 and have no children, and it is still important when they call 9-1-1 when the ambulance appears in their house in time. We need to raise this situation.
I think the most are some of these rural towns. Individual residents may not intend to use a child care center, but if we don’t have a center, there will be no more people with children in this town because the family will move out. In fact, they don’t exist 20 years later.
What do you think is the most compelling argument?
I think this is a family case.
The family is a value that is so strong by all the streaks, all politically persuasive Americans, and the country has a community that cannot spend a good time in the community they want to live, cannot live together, cannot live together, cannot feed religious institutions together, cannot share the way they want parents, because we determine the responsibility of this individual, and the responsibility of these children is the responsibility of the government, and the responsibility of these children is what we want.
For me, this weakens every part of our society. It weakens our family. It weakens our community. It weakens the country. And I think the more we can say, “this is the vision we can achieve with good child care,” I think that has the real potential to move people.
How should we consider paid family leave?
I’m absolutely sure we need to hold on to family leave and parenting. Paid parental leave is baby care, and you can do your best.
Good paid leave relieves the pressure on the external child care system. Baby care is the most expensive and hardest to provide. It requires the lowest regulatory compliance with their health and safety, as well as the lowest child-to-adult ratio. So the more we can eliminate the need for external care for babies (which is also when most parents want to go home with their kids, which is also great. It really shouldn’t be a conversation about child care policies that do not include paid leave.
I think the more we can say that babies will be covered in paid leave to a large extent, which is also a conversation with less charge. My experience is that people have much more negative reactions to the idea of young children in a licensed child care program than they think about babies.
What arguments are effective in other countries with strong child care systems?
The U.S. child care system is one of the lowest funding systems and one of the worst systems for affordability and access. I’m talking about the United States, compared to Germany, France, Canada, Australia.
But it is interesting that these countries have undergone major reforms over the past 20 years. Are these systems perfect? No, but it does indicate a larger form. Different arguments work in different places. Often, this is a combination of the gender equality argument, and to be sure, some economic arguments, and then rooting this idea should be a right. I think it is worth noting that these efforts are led by female leaders.
The federal government is in cut-off mode,,,,, Including starting first. Where do advocates go from here?
I think it’s appropriate to be on a defensive stand.
When I look at the country, I find some hope. It’s not just a blue state. Texas will donate $100 million to its childcare system; Montana carves a trust for early care and education; Kentucky is offering parenting for free. Many red countries are beginning to accept the need for some kind of government role.
Now, do I think anything at the federal level will happen between now and 2029? Absolutely not. This is extremely unlikely. But I think there is something to say to use this time in the federal wilderness at the national level to rethink this strategy.
This article is part of the Times Early Childhood Education Program, focusing on learning and development of California children from birth to 5 years of age. For more information about the program and its charitable funders, please go to latimes.com/earlyed.
