Blog entry #12

Caring for our young: childcare in Europe and the United States
European countries, in general, are much more progressive in terms of government supported childcare than the United States. The quality of the care is also often better. The United States is increasingly realizing the importance of early childhood education, and many parents desire to enroll their children in preschool and want more places for their children to go (Clawson et. al 29). The United States government has realized that early childhood education and childcare is an important and good thing, however “…most attempts to improve US childcare are incremental, efforts to get a little more money here or there, with little consideration for what kind of system is being created” (Clawson et. al 30).
Most US parents struggle finding childcare. For 3 and 4 year old children with employed mothers, “…more than one out of eight are in three or more childcare arrangements, and almost half are in two or more arrangements…” (Clawson et. al 30). Parents have to constantly shift their children between caregivers and search for more childcare opportunities. In France, all children age 3 to 6 have a place in government sponsored childcare facilities, and many parents take advantage of this opportunity (Clawson et. al 30). The French system of childcare also integrates early education, as well as offering extra resources to specifically poor areas. The staff of childcare centers are also well-paid and educated, making it a much more desirable job than working at US childcare centers.
US childcare centers are expensive for parents. While some lower socioeconomic classes do receive financial assistance, it is minimal, and the government does not make up for the deficit. Quality of childcare is also quite diverse, depending on location, funding, and employees. The French childcare options are almost as expensive as those in the US, however parents do not pay, instead, the government does (Clawson et. al 31). Many Americans advocate adopting a French-like childcare system, especially because of its emphasis on early childhood education.
Another example of European childcare systems is Denmark. Danish childcare centers do not emphasize early childhood education like the French do. Danish childcare centers focus around social, unorganized times, with pedagogues, not teachers (Clawson et. al 32). This system also integrates all children 6 and under, unlike the French system which only applies to 3 to 6 year olds. And also, the Danish government run childcare options are only available to working parents (Clawson et. al 32). This system appeals to Americans who want their young children to be in a less structured, informal environment. This system stresses relaxation, socialization, and play. The pedagogues also, alternatively from teachers, act more as loving caregivers.
One major difference between most European childcare instead of US childcare, is that in the US caregivers are often paid low wages, have no special training, and are almost all women (Clawson et. al 33). They also often have lower staff-child ratios than European caregiving centers. However, it is debated whether the relationships children have with the caregivers or their peers is more important. Another striking difference is that although social expectations in the US often prompt mothers to stay at home, European companies usually offer more parental leave than US companies. Also, some European policies also cater to fathers’ paid leave, while few US policies do. The childcare system in the US does need modification, but parents and government must decide how to model and fund their new systems.

Developing Earner-Carer Policies in the US
The basis of this article is that government policies supporting childcare is possible in the US, based on what other countries have done. The US is far behind many European countries in terms of government sponsored childcare. This could be caused be several factors, including the decentralization of policy-making authority and hesitation of many Americans for the government to allow government to allocate resources for things that were traditionally private (Gornick 268). The US also differs from Europe and Canada in terms of racial and ethnic diversity of families. Many of these groups might be hostile to government intervention in childcare, traditionally believed to be private. Policies must include options for all Americans. These policies, the authors assert, are different from welfare. It is instead often known as a social provision (Gornick 270). The European policies, as stated in the above reading, often emphasize early childhood education, especially language education. The education also includes cultural learning, especially beneficial for children of immigrants, which is becoming a larger part of the population (Gornick 271).
One of the greatest barriers to government-sponsored childcare is that Americans often shy away from government intervention in personal lives. “…American parents want to be free to choose the type of care their child receives. The political pollster Ed Goeas, for example, observes that ‘people do believe that ‘It takes a village to raise a child,’ but they want a village that expresses the values and beliefs they have” (qtd. in Gornick 272). This supports the heterogeneity of beliefs in the US, and each family wants to raise their child within their own values. However, government-sponsored childcare does not mean families would be forced to use these options. Also, flexibility in the options can be included to cater to several types of families, especially because single parenthood is especially prevalent in the US (Gornick 274). However, the research believes policies for single and dual parent households are feasible. Provisions include regulating work time, leave time, and providing access to affordable housing and healthcare (Gornick 275). Another difference US parents have is many more are in low-wage jobs. Policies for these parents would be especially important, however care policies alone will not economically level these families with others.
Another question is how government assistance to families with children will affect child rates. “In the United States, critics suggest that generous social welfare policies could increase birthrates and decrease marriage rates…have had [a potential to have a] ‘pronatalist’ orientation” (Gornick et. al 280). Europeans are currently experiencing declining fertility rates, some to the point of concern. Some Americans, in contrast, believe these policies might lead to increased fertility. Others also believe policies might lead to higher rates of single motherhood, but this has not happened in the majority of European countries. Another concern is that these policies would increase unemployment rates and even weakens the economy (Gornick et. al 284). However, European policies do seem economically possible for the US.
Another part of the debate is whether care benefits should be at the state or national level. In European countries, the policies are nationally decided, while in the US most policies are currently state based. The states are also where the majority of moves for more government-sponsored childcare come from. These efforts could eventually become national programs or federal-state levels (Gornick et. al 287).
As explained previously, the greatest barrier to instituting European-like childcare options is that many Americans are hesitant to let the government into this part of their personal life. However, they are “…supportive of government programs that are constructed as enhancing opportunities or providing support to those who are gainfully employed…most American parents say they believe that government should be doing more to support working families” (Gornick et. al 289). This leads some to believe that government childcare would be well received be Americans, as long as they allow options. Another important barrier is that some men will be against this shift in gender roles and carework. Other studies, however, report fathers would like to spend more time at home but feel this is unsupported by employers and coworkers (Gornick et. al 292). Resistance towards changing policies could also come from employers, who will be unwilling to set out the public programs for families that are similar to European programs because of possible costs (Gornick et. al 294). However, European countries did not largely suffer from these policies. Also, this could be good for productivity, because workers will be happier and work harder if there work week is shortened. The highly gendered carework in the US is alarming, but now more women move into the labor force and struggle finding childcare. Although no European model of government is perfect, the US can adopt many strategies they use to improve current childcare options.

The Work and Family Handbook
This author also begins by asserting the US’s shortcomings in public policies for families. One particular area the US is behind in is family leave policies, because the US provides no law for parental leave with the birth of a newborn (Kelly 99), instead it is decided by companies. Some are provided with unpaid family leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act, but not all (Kelly 100). There are several restrictions workers must meet to be eligible for unpaid leave, and it is, as named, unpaid, therefore many people cannot afford to take time off. Many companies also do not comply to FMLA rules. This leads many women to take the parental leave, since it is unpaid and they often earn less than their husbands, so men usually cannot choose to take a leave from work (Kelly 101). For companies that provide some form of paid maternity leave, this solely applies to women. These laws, however, differ state by state.
European countries, by contrast, offer much more flexible family leave policies that are paid more than US employees. Each nation has its own laws about time of family leave, payment, and whether it can be for men, women, or both. Some countries go as far as to promote father’s parental leave by providing “individual, nontransferable leave benefits” (Kelly 103). And families do not have to worry about losing the immense amount of income that US couples worry about. Each country has its own laws, however, but all are considered more generous than US policies.
Asian countries have also been attempting to revise family leave policy and extend it to men as well. Currently, Japan and South Korea offer better family leave policies than the US (Kelly 104). These policies include large portion of wage retention, a specific amount off, and benefits for both men and women.
Currently, US parents must find their own childcare options. Although the US provides some support to the poorest families, it is far from enough. The benefits the neediest families receive include tax breaks, subsidized care, and welfare (Kelly 105). These options all keep the government removed from the childcare centers themselves, because Americans often fear governmental interference in their private lives. Therefore, tax deductions are often used because then the parents themselves choose how to spend that money on childcare. However, “tax breaks provide greater benefits to higher-income families than lower income families” (Kelly 106), so it often does not help those most in need. Another way the government tries to indirectly provide childcare is by encouraging employer-based childcare centers, and those employers receive tax credits. The state, not federal, governments are in charge of controlling the quality of childcare centers, which are low in comparison to other industrialized nations.
European countries usually offer childcare for children ages 3-schoolage. The government, ensuring high quality care, much more rigorously controls childcare. Several Asian countries also have more developed childcare systems, especially Japan.
Another way governments can help working families is by mandating lower-hour workweeks. Employers do not have to subscribe to any specific laws about limiting time at work, and do not protect against mandatory overtime (Kelly 109). Many workers feel pressured to work long hours to keep their jobs, and new parents want to prove their remaining dedication to work. Women are especially pressured to commit to more hours. Women who only have time for part time jobs have much lower wages (Kelly 110). Most other Western nations, by contrast, regulate work hours more rigorously. There is a hourly cap, including overtime, enforced by the European Union, as well as paid vacation time (Kelly 111).
Countries providing government care assistance can be classified into three groups, “a. whether their policies are available universally to all citizens or are targeted at specific groups of citizens, b. the generosity and quality of benefits provided, and c. the extend of ‘de-commoditfication’ or the degree to which ‘a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the [labor market]” (qtd. in Kelly 113). The policies vary based on the social beliefs and governmental roles of each country. Work-family policies have positive effects on women’s wages and encourages them to remain in the workforce, and regulation of part-time work pay and hours would also be beneficial for mothers.

Creating Gender Egalitarian Societies: An Agenda for Reform
Women and men are quickly approaching equally employment rates in many countries. This leads to shorter time at home for both men and women. Without an institutional reform, American parents are going to be spending less and less time with their children. The current policies also do not support gender egalitarianism. The traditional role, of male-breadwinner and female domestic worked, began to change after WWII (Gornick et al. 316). The rate of female employees has also grown in many European countries. However, social policies have been slow in catching up with the gender equality advancements in the workplace. Families experience a serious lack of time together, and parents scramble for childcare options. Children also suffer from parents’ long hours, “employment arrangements that great reduce parents’ time and attention for their children appear to pose the greatest risk for child well-being” (Gornick et. al 319). The interests of all family members, fathers, mothers, and children, must be considered while making social family-work policy changes. Most families lie somewhere on a spectrum of both parents employed full-time and neither parents employed (Gornick et. al 322), and the labor market must respond to their flexibly. The incentive for these changes should be higher than the employer-level, and similar to European models, be left to the government (Gornick et. al 323). The author believes that the best way to provide this is a combination of several elements that European countries feature: “paid family leave, regulation of working time, and early childhood education and care” (Gornick et. al 324). Leave policies should also be extended to both genders, including immediately following childbirth. Leave should also include full pay. Regulation of work time is also important so that both men and women can spend more time at home. However, questions about pay and hours also bring about a debate. Early childhood education is also important, which is why many European countries emphasize early childcare education, not daycare (Gornick et. al 326). This education must substitute for time that parents are at work.
Although each European countries’ laws differ, they all have in common maternity leave policies and benefits, gender neutral parental leaves, support gender equality in the home and workplace, provide work time regulations, and are financed through social insurance to help distribute and minimize costs (Gornick et. al 329). The Nordic countries are especially generous in terms of benefits and promoting gender equality (Gornick et. al 331).
The early childhood education in European countries also include publicly supported care for infants and toddlers, affordable early education around age 3, high-quality care centers, and knowledgeable employees (Gornick et. al 334). Although many Americans might shy away from public childcare centers because of government intervention in personal life, it has proved beneficial in many European countries and systems like this are possible in the US.