The High Price of Great Books Daycare

The lead plaintiff is

Ilumi Sanchez,

an immigrant to the U.S. who is licensed to care for children in her home. She has a law degree from the Dominican Republic. She and other plaintiffs argue that the requirement to get an associate degree doesn’t advance any real government interest in ensuring quality daycare. For one thing, colleges that award such diplomas make students take dozens of credits in general-education courses and elective classes.

This did not convince the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Quoting case law, Judge

Sri Srinivasan

writes that unless an economic policy infringes fundamental rights, it “must be upheld ‘if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis’ for the legislative choice.” In his view, D.C. bureaucrats could reasonably think that mandating a college degree in early-childhood education “would be, generally speaking, relevant to the work of childcare providers.”

As for those required elective classes, Judge Srinivasan says this: “A variety of courses outside the early-childhood major, from math and English to art and history, could be beneficial to someone tasked with the educational development of toddlers—as any adult who has been flummoxed by a two-year-old repeatedly asking ‘why’ can attest.”

Sorry, judge, but that’s hilarious. When two-year-olds ask why, the best answer often is “because I said so.” They aren’t interested in history, since they’ve never heard of it.

As a matter of legal analysis, it might be correct that D.C.’s regulation is not so irrational as to be unlawful. But this low bar is saving a seriously irrational policy, as Judge Srinivasan inadvertently demonstrates. As a matter of economics, the college mandate will constrict supply. Daycare providers who are otherwise qualified, and even loved by parents, will be shut out, or else they’ll have to pay tuition to comply. Prices will inevitably go up.

As a matter of politics, it’s a perfect example of progressives’ fatal conceit. Chinstrokers in the D.C. bureaucracy think that more education is good, yes? They cite experts, as Judge Srinivasan notes, such as “a report from the National Academies recommending a bachelor’s degree requirement for all educators of children ages zero to eight.”

At the same time, progressives scream that child care is too costly, so President Biden proposes massive federal subsidies. Does no one stop to think how burdensome regulations might be related to rising costs?

The Institute for Justice, which brought the case, hasn’t decided whether to appeal. The D.C. rule has exceptions, such as a waiver process for teachers with 10 years of experience, but a better approach is to withdraw it. To adapt a famous phrase, the city could say that if you like your daycare, you can keep your daycare. But if D.C. is bloody-minded for mandates, how about requiring economics classes to be a city regulator?