Read on Twitter
THREAD: So, this piece by @kbstevens (who I respect a lot!) is... off-base. I think it's worth going through a few key points to show why. https://ifstudies.org/blog/three-problems-with-president-bidens-child-care-rescue-plan
First, Stevens makes what I think is frankly a bizarre claim:
"The stream of alarming news stories, though, has been based entirely on anecdotal data: collected by advocacy groups, published as research reports, and widely promoted by a well-coordinated advocacy campaign."
"The stream of alarming news stories, though, has been based entirely on anecdotal data: collected by advocacy groups, published as research reports, and widely promoted by a well-coordinated advocacy campaign."
I don't know what Stevens' definition of 'anecdote' is, but groups like @NAEYC & @BPC_Bipartisan -- and many state groups (I personally helped do one in VA) -- have been surveying child care programs AND parents. A few examples:
https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/public-policy-advocacy/holding_on_until_help_comes.survey_analysis_july_2020.pdf https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/child-care-in-covid-another-look/
https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/public-policy-advocacy/holding_on_until_help_comes.survey_analysis_july_2020.pdf https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/child-care-in-covid-another-look/
I get that these aren't like, university-level dissertation research, but it's just odd to dismiss quantitative results from multiple sources all pointing toward the same conclusion.
Then we have hard-and-fast data from some states on permanent closures: https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/spl/pa-coronavirus-child-care-day-care-temporary-permanent-closed-20201006.html
Then we have hard-and-fast data from some states on permanent closures: https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/spl/pa-coronavirus-child-care-day-care-temporary-permanent-closed-20201006.html
And enrollment data from programs, too! Unless they're lying, this sort of thing isn't an anecdote: "enrollment for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers had only returned to 52 percent of prepandemic levels as of July 2020" https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/news/2020/11/10/492795/decreased-enrollment-higher-operating-costs-child-care-hit-hard-amid-covid-19/
We ALSO have secondary evidence from places like child care job postings. So, I think we can safely reject the hypothesis that things in the child care sector just aren't that bad and those pesky advocates are hyping the problem. https://twitter.com/ChrisMHerbst/status/1354554066634870784?s=20
Lastly on her point #1 (this was all just #1!), Stevens says the workforce losses are from school closures. Well, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of parents with children under 5 who are mysteriously gone from the labor force, at @CAPEarlyEd shows: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/news/2021/01/13/494450/saving-child-care-means-preserving-jobs-supporting-working-families-small-businesses/
Stevens' second point is about the proposal being not "well targeted". She wants the funds going to family child cares -- which ARE eligible, and she doesn't even claim they're excluded, so ??? -- and that middle class families will get support too. (gasp)
One thing I've found in my research is that child care costs are a HUGE burden for middle-class Millennials in expensive metro's. Moreover, this is basically the whole tired universal vs. targeted debate which even many conservatives are coming around on: https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-working-class-party-child-tax-credit-debate-is-a-test-for-gop
I'll keep my powder dry on Stevens' third point, which is that expanding public support of child care "poses an underrecognized risk to the well-being of children and families," as she has a longer essay coming on that topic. I will make one evergreen point, though:
It is possible (preferable, in fact!) to support BOTH external child care (in all its forms) AND parental care -- allowing parents to choose the care situation they prefer. It's not an either-or, and notably the development of a robust child allowance supports the latter!
In the end, it's a weak attack on a strong proposal. Joe Biden is not bringing compulsory child care for your infant, nor buckets of $$ for those greedy parents & child care providers. He's trying to stabilize a sector & stabilize families. I'm disappointed that's controversial.
