there's a lot of things that a cursory analysis of the way we do schooling here presents as irrational, on their face. why do we have summer holidays, for example, in a society that is overwhelmingly urbanized? why does school end so early? why does it start so late?
and, while you may get immediate answers like "the teacher's union won't allow it" (which is probably not true) or "it costs too much money", they essentially all collapse on the premise of expanding state involvement in the child care sector.
is it not obvious that we have a crisis in education, rather than a crisis in child care?
and, i need to push back against the idea that the system should be designed to maximize employment opportunities for women. to begin with, this is based on a lot of outdated assumptions, such as that only women face the burden of child care. it's an essentially sexist argument, at it's core, that is built on conservative assumptions about the role of women in the family and no doubt fails to reflect actual, real-world statistics. i'm not young - i'm 40 - and i was raised by a working father that just left me at home by myself, because my mother was a mia heroin addict. that was reality in the 80s, it's not something novel or obscure, anymore. any approach to childcare needs to start with the premise that it's not 1955, and families don't look like they did in 1955, anymore.
but, regardless, even if it was 1955, designing a child care system around the needs of their mothers, or their mother's employers, is selfish and missing the point.
the system needs to be designed around the needs of the kids themselves, and that should mean putting education at the centre of it.
so, whatever this ends up looking like, i want it built around the school. bring kids to school earlier and younger. make them stay later. and, stop giving them the summers off.
problem solved.