Annotated Bibliography
The Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act has attracted a lot of attention due to its bold statements and declarations. The bill looks to create and fund an affordable childcare and early learning program. The proposed law targets children aged six weeks and above but not of school-going age. All children in America will be able to participate in the program irrespective of their citizenship status, disability status, family income, or family member employment status. The program requires the Department of Health and Human Services to support program sponsors, which amounts to $700 billion over ten years. The program is not entirely free, as a fee is attached based on the family income. Families will pay a maximum of 7% of their income, and those with incomes below 200% of the poverty line will not be charged. The act has evoked several responses and commentaries as lawmakers try to forge the best way forward.
Bezark, M., & Reidt-Parker, J. (2021). Lawmakers let universal childcare legislation die 50 years ago. Let’s not repeat this history. Web.
This article talks about the failure of a prior attempt at creating universal child care and how we can avoid the same with the proposed bill. The author points to the failure of the Comprehensive Child Development Act (CDA) of 1970 despite initial support from both parties. The act failed to become law because its supporters failed to mobilize grassroots support, resulting in the less-capable system we operate in today. The CDA had support similar to that the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act is receiving, and the author warns us to be careful and ensure we avoid the pitfalls the previous attempt at universal child care fell into. The act’s failure led to the expansion of the 1954 childcare tax credit to middle-class families, but studies have repeatedly shown its flaws, including thin profit margins for caregivers, low worker wages, often without benefits, and high costs. Several attempts at improving the system have only served to prop it up. We are at the cusp of historic legislation that will avail support to families and children when they need it the most, so we should ensure we do not fail and keep using a broken system like the one we have been using for the last five decades. This article was published by Start Early, a reputable organization that advocates for children’s rights and outcomes. As such, the article can be considered biased as the organization openly supports children, but the author presents objective evidence and cites historical facts that do not lean toward either liberal or conservative agendas. This article is useful for my research purposes because it gives a balanced view of the proposed law based on historical facts.
Haspel, E. (2021). The universal child care and early learning act: The boldest plan on offer is quietly received (3-part series, part 2). Web.
This article takes a deep dive into the proposed act and discusses some important aspects and elements that might not be obvious. The author presents the good of the Act, the bad, and the undetermined. The good is that the act takes the Biden Administration’s Child Care for Working Families Act (CCFWA) further by making child care accessible to all families in the United States and is also cheap. One con of the act is that it uses the federal poverty level, which is a crude measure as it does not account for the differences in the cost of living between different states. The bad of the act is that it is susceptible to bureaucracy and standardization that may undermine the quality of care provided. Governments are also not required to apply for prime sponsorship, which means some people may not benefit if the local authorities opt not to apply. Also, the UCCEL is not truly universal as it does not include allowances for stay-at-home parents. On the undetermined, the act has been received quietly and has fallen from most discussions as many people seem inclined towards the Child Care For Working Families Act, which renders the future uncertain. This research is objective and unbiased because it presents all sides of the discussion and possible arguments about this law without leaning toward any. This article was also published in Early Learning Nation, a reputable organization is known to fight for the interests of children in a way that does not undermine other demographics. It is useful to my research because it touches on the subtleties and nuances of the law that might not be obvious at first sight.
New York Times. (2019). Why the U.S. has long resisted universal child care. Web.
This article talks about why Americans are not amenable to universal public child care. The author posits there is a misalignment between reality and the ideal in America, which is why the country has always resisted universal child care. Evidence shows that more women work when there is an adequate supply of high-quality and affordable child care. Several initiatives have been made to ensure this, but Americans are still not as keen to take advantage as expected. The American resistance is founded on the ethical argument about a mother’s proper place and if they should work at all. The author touches on surveys that show Americans see a mother’s proper place to be at home with their children. With that, evidence shows that women are likely to work where childcare is affordable and accessible. Americans are still not persuaded by the evidence and keep asking whether we should make it easier for mothers to operate away from home. American resistance can be seen in the failure of the Comprehensive Childhood Development Act as the president vetoed it for “family-weakening implications.” This view led to the establishment of a divided system where childcare is only accessible to rich and affluent families. This article is unbiased because it presents arguments based on verifiable facts. It is also adapted from the New York Times, a reputable organization known for providing unbiased opinions and analyses. This article is useful to my research because it presents a novel look at the law, similar ones in the past, and what is likely to happen based on history.
Rifkin, J. (2021). Universal child care and early learning act would establish universal pre-kindergarten. Web.
This article gives information about the context that prompted the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act, what the law will entail, and the views of its proponents and opponents. According to the author, child care currently costs more than in-state college tuition. The high costs prompt many parents, even those who want to work, to stay at home. Further, the idea of a publicly funded pre-K system has always been around, and some forms have been enacted in several states. The author states that the act’s supporters cite that universal childcare is the optimal solution to the broken childcare system we operate in. Further, the act is in line with the Biden Administration’s goal of equal and just economic recovery for all, as it gives mothers that want to work a chance to do the same. According to the author, opponents hold that the proposed act appears beneficial, but that would not happen in practice. Further, they hold that parents do not prefer the idea, its benefits are illusory and giving parents the money is a better approach. This article was published in GovTrack Insider, a reputable organization so it is generally unbiased. It is also useful for my research because it gives an in-depth description of the setting surrounding the law.
References
Bezark, M., & Reidt-Parker, J. (2021). Lawmakers let universal childcare legislation die 50 years ago. Let’s not repeat this history. Web.
Haspel, E. (2021). The universal child care and early learning act: The boldest plan on offer is quietly received (3-part series, part 2). Web.
New York Times. (2019). Why the U.S. has long resisted universal child care. Web.
Rifkin, J. (2021). Universal child care and early learning act would establish universal pre-kindergarten. Web.