Can you please cite these research results. There are some specific results, but I would be interested in your long term data.
I would be interested how research defines this "high quality social/cultural environments" and how it controls for factors such as genetics, family cultural and financial background, etc. Separated twin studies would probably be ideal (but I'm not an expert in the field).
I'm not sure how we expect a 1:6 ratio to be "cheap", even before factoring in costs like real estate.
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/research/pri/VPKthrough3rd_fin...
A Randomized Control Trial of a Statewide Voluntary Prekindergarten Program on Children’s Skills and Behaviors through Third Grade
>The third question we addressed involved the sustainability of effects on achievement and behavior beyond kindergarten entry. Children in both groups were followed and reassessed in the spring every year with over 90% of the initial sample located tested on each wave. By the end of kindergarten, the control children had caught up to the TN‐VPK [preschool] children and there were no longer significant differences between them on any achievement measures. The same result was obtained at the end of first grade using both composite achievement measures. In second grade, however, the groups began to diverge with the TN‐VPK children scoring lower than the control children on most of the measures. The differences were significant on both achievement composite measures and on the math subtests.
>First grade teachers rated the TN‐VPK children as less well prepared for school, having poorer work skills in the classrooms, and feeling more negative about school. It is notable that these ratings preceded the downward achievement trend we found for VPK children in second and third grade.
Further commentary and discussion
http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/null-hypothesis-for-pre-k-ed...
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/10/new...
The office janitor's salary is deductible from the business owner's income tax, but the child caregiver is not.
If it's not an economical proposition, involving the government surely can't help.
The issue is that folks want a very high caregiver/child ration, for what is essentially unskilled labour (any non-pathological adolescent or adult can take care of children acceptably). So the supply of workers (i.e., just about everyone) vastly outstrips the demand.
Why not just go back to single-earner households and extended families?
Define "acceptably".
Some babysitters think it's acceptable to just chat on Facebook all day and plant the child in front of the TV for 10 hours. That's not acceptable to me, but that's more or less what you get for very cheap labor; just someone to keep you legally clear from abandoning a minor. Like those super-cheap bare minimum car insurance that does nothing but keep you legally driving.
Here's the definition of acceptable when it comes to my children: Take kids to parks and museums. Can avoid using profanity around them. Won't smoke around them. Won't be speeding down the highway with them. Can be trusted not to fill my children with junk food. Can truly trust them to actively watch the kids so they don't do something crazy like sticking a fork into a power outlet or turning on the gas stove without the flame, thus filling the house with gas. Right now, the only people my wife & I trust with our kids are their grandparents... aside from the pre-school teachers.
Finding quality childcare is harder than you think.
If there's so much money to be made in child are, why aren't childcare centres popping up on every street corner? It's the kind of business you can easily run from your house. Get five neighbours to pay you twenty bucks a day to look after their kid, and everybody is coming out ahead.
I can only assume that the reason it doesn't happen is massive government licensing requirements.
Well, except the kids.