The Liberal plan for a national childcare strategy, specifically $10/day childcare across the country, is just a few signatures away from eventually becoming a reality. Every province including Alberta has signed on, except for Ontario, but Premier Doug Ford has expressed that a “deal is close to being signed”. For Liberal partisans, this is monumental progress on a key platform policy from the last election. For parents currently struggling with the rising costs of childcare, this news is almost certainly good news..Unfortunately, the excitement about $10/day childcare is dampened, not because it won’t potentially reduce costs for parents, but because new research shows that it might not actually be beneficial for childhood development, especially those from low-income households. According to research published by the American Psychological Association, state-funded Pre-K led to significantly negative effects for kids in Tennessee..According to the research, which was a multiyear study evaluating the outcomes for students who attended, and didn’t attend Tennessee’s public Pre-K program, children who were enrolled were more likely to have discipline issues, more likely to be referred to special education services, and scored worse on state academic assessments. The initial benefit of Pre-K all but disappeared come the end of Kindergarten, with troubling results appearing by grade 3, which only worsened come grade 6. So much so that the researchers who published the study stated “At least for poor children, it turns out that something is not better than nothing”..And this isn’t the first time we’ve seen findings like this. In fact, Quebec’s $10/day model which the federal plan is inspired by, generated similar results. According to research published by the American Economic Journal in 2019, the introduction of universal childcare in Quebec led to worse health outcomes, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life..And while our federal government is quite politically and financially tied to the idea of universal childcare, it is important to note that there is a much better way to support parents, one that expands choice and is shown to have significant positive effects on children: cash payments..Cash payments in support of parents are superior, first, because it allows for flexibility. Cash payments allow for families to seek out the childcare that best suits their needs, whether that be alternative childcare arrangements, home care, or family care. This is especially true in a more modern economy where working hours are in flux more than they have been in the past. This approach leans on what the Niskanen Center refers to as “Childcare Pluralism”. And while their work focuses on the United States, childcare pluralism is appropriate for Canada as well..Canada is a diverse country, in every sense, and better off for it. And because of that diversity parents have a wide range of needs both professionally and at home. Cash payments as opposed to universal child care allows for those parents to best suit the needs of their household. Going this route over the “one size fits all” approach ultimately helps make the market for childcare better, by reworking the incentive model and drastically expanding the choices available to parents, and spurring competition from providers looking to meet those needs..While there is limited research on the direct impact cash payments have on older children, research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that a predictable monthly cash transfer to parents living in poverty has a causal impact on infant brain activity. Using an electroencephalogram (EEG), their findings show that babies with cash transfer parents had a higher rate of high-frequency brain activity, which is correlated with better socioeconomic outcomes, memory, and cognitive functioning..If anything, the pandemic has reinforced that while our federal government isn’t good at doing much of anything, one thing they are particularly good at is direct transfers to citizens. The rollout of programs like CERB pretty clearly demonstrates the federal government is well suited for a cash transfer program. A childcare cash transfer program, as opposed to a universal child care plan, also has the benefit of being immediate. Not only has the agreement process between the federal government and provincial governments taken time, but it will also take a substantial amount of time for $10/day childcare to actually be an option for parents. Logistically, there is still a long way to go before this becomes a reality for parents..Cash payments, in comparison, take a fraction of the time, are logistically simple, expand choice for parents, and avoid the negative childhood development impacts research has shown us exists. There is a better way to improve outcomes. The question is, have we passed the point of no return?.David Clement is a columnist with the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center
The Liberal plan for a national childcare strategy, specifically $10/day childcare across the country, is just a few signatures away from eventually becoming a reality. Every province including Alberta has signed on, except for Ontario, but Premier Doug Ford has expressed that a “deal is close to being signed”. For Liberal partisans, this is monumental progress on a key platform policy from the last election. For parents currently struggling with the rising costs of childcare, this news is almost certainly good news..Unfortunately, the excitement about $10/day childcare is dampened, not because it won’t potentially reduce costs for parents, but because new research shows that it might not actually be beneficial for childhood development, especially those from low-income households. According to research published by the American Psychological Association, state-funded Pre-K led to significantly negative effects for kids in Tennessee..According to the research, which was a multiyear study evaluating the outcomes for students who attended, and didn’t attend Tennessee’s public Pre-K program, children who were enrolled were more likely to have discipline issues, more likely to be referred to special education services, and scored worse on state academic assessments. The initial benefit of Pre-K all but disappeared come the end of Kindergarten, with troubling results appearing by grade 3, which only worsened come grade 6. So much so that the researchers who published the study stated “At least for poor children, it turns out that something is not better than nothing”..And this isn’t the first time we’ve seen findings like this. In fact, Quebec’s $10/day model which the federal plan is inspired by, generated similar results. According to research published by the American Economic Journal in 2019, the introduction of universal childcare in Quebec led to worse health outcomes, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life..And while our federal government is quite politically and financially tied to the idea of universal childcare, it is important to note that there is a much better way to support parents, one that expands choice and is shown to have significant positive effects on children: cash payments..Cash payments in support of parents are superior, first, because it allows for flexibility. Cash payments allow for families to seek out the childcare that best suits their needs, whether that be alternative childcare arrangements, home care, or family care. This is especially true in a more modern economy where working hours are in flux more than they have been in the past. This approach leans on what the Niskanen Center refers to as “Childcare Pluralism”. And while their work focuses on the United States, childcare pluralism is appropriate for Canada as well..Canada is a diverse country, in every sense, and better off for it. And because of that diversity parents have a wide range of needs both professionally and at home. Cash payments as opposed to universal child care allows for those parents to best suit the needs of their household. Going this route over the “one size fits all” approach ultimately helps make the market for childcare better, by reworking the incentive model and drastically expanding the choices available to parents, and spurring competition from providers looking to meet those needs..While there is limited research on the direct impact cash payments have on older children, research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that a predictable monthly cash transfer to parents living in poverty has a causal impact on infant brain activity. Using an electroencephalogram (EEG), their findings show that babies with cash transfer parents had a higher rate of high-frequency brain activity, which is correlated with better socioeconomic outcomes, memory, and cognitive functioning..If anything, the pandemic has reinforced that while our federal government isn’t good at doing much of anything, one thing they are particularly good at is direct transfers to citizens. The rollout of programs like CERB pretty clearly demonstrates the federal government is well suited for a cash transfer program. A childcare cash transfer program, as opposed to a universal child care plan, also has the benefit of being immediate. Not only has the agreement process between the federal government and provincial governments taken time, but it will also take a substantial amount of time for $10/day childcare to actually be an option for parents. Logistically, there is still a long way to go before this becomes a reality for parents..Cash payments, in comparison, take a fraction of the time, are logistically simple, expand choice for parents, and avoid the negative childhood development impacts research has shown us exists. There is a better way to improve outcomes. The question is, have we passed the point of no return?.David Clement is a columnist with the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center
