Idaho is about to endanger its youngest residents—with help from Wonderschool
Note: As usual, all commentary herein is entirely my personal analysis and doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of any groups with which I am affiliated
On Friday, an Idaho House committee moved ahead a bill that will eliminate all maximum child-to-adult ratios in child care programs, and at the same time forbid localities from setting any such ratios. The bill, House Bill 243, will instead have each individual provider set whatever they deem a ratio “appropriate to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of all children in attendance.” What is perhaps most shocking about this legislation is who is behind it: the company Wonderschool.
During the hearing Friday (video download here), the bill was first introduced by its legislative sponsors, then a lobbyist promoting the bill came up and walked the committee through the text, line by line, for nearly 30 minutes. The lobbyist, Kate Haas, was asked by a legislator who she was representing, and replied, “Wonderschool is my client.”1 (timestamp 49:12). When further asked what Wonderschool is, Haas noted that “there is definitely someone in the audience who is better equipped to talk about that than I am–the CEO is here with us,” referring to Chris Bennett, Wonderschool’s CEO.
(If you’re unfamiliar with Wonderschool, they are a venture capital-backed platform that offers child care search for families, enrollment and other back-end business support for providers, and various child care services for employers and the government. I reached out to Chris multiple times starting Friday to try and hear his side of the story; we had a call scheduled yesterday he was unable to make, so I sent him questions in writing, but haven’t heard back. Given the fact the legislation is still live and headed to the Idaho House floor, I am posting this now, and will update if he chooses to respond to the questions.)
I don’t think I should have to spell out why eliminating ratios is so radical, but in case you need a reminder: child-to-adult ratios have striking impacts on both quality and health and safety (contra to Haas’ claims during the hearing2). As a research summary from the independent group ChildTrends puts it:
Research shows that smaller child-to-staff ratios have been associated with fewer situations that threaten children’s safety. Moreover, when early childhood caregivers are responsible for more children than they can manage, it increases their stress and can result in the loss of the caregiver’s self-control. Indeed, the presence of a second caregiver has been associated with a lower likelihood of child abuse in the child care settings.
In addition to ensuring that young children are cared for in healthy and safe environments, children who are cared for in ECE settings with lower child-to-staff ratios receive more stimulating and responsive care, and engage in more verbal interactions with their caregivers. Such interactions can foster the secure attachments that are critical for children’s socioemotional well-being and lay the foundation for children’s ability to build healthy relationships in the future. Lower child-to-staff ratios and smaller group sizes have also been associated with children’s positive development, including higher social competence, communication and language skills, and cognitive development.
Of course, all of this simply reinforces what common sense tells us. Imagine if the government decided airlines should be able to choose how many flight attendants they needed per flight, or whether or not to have a co-pilot. Or that prisons should get to decide to have as few guards they thought was a swell idea. There are plenty of good child care actors in Idaho who wouldn’t use this newfound loophole to increase ratios beyond what they already use, which means the ones who would are mainly those looking to cut corners or increase profit margins.3
And therein lies the rub. Why would Wonderschool, a company that has been lauded and won awards, be behind such reckless and irresponsible legislation? It’s a question that needs answering, and Bennett and his company should be held to account by his backers and the child care sector writ large.
(Notably, the Idaho hearing featured testimony from child care provider after child care provider stridently opposing the proposed changes, with one aptly noting, “how often do you get small business owners up here asking you to regulate them more?” So, it’s also unclear who Wonderschool or the legislature thinks they are doing a favor for here.4)
I am not being hyperbolic when I say this is one of the most dangerous child care bills I have ever seen moved through a legislature, both in terms of the impacts on children and in terms of setting a precedent other states might look to.5 It is shocking if not scandalous that Bennett and his company are backing a bill that threatens so much damage to the child care system they purport to champion.6 Wonderschool owes all of us what I sincerely hope is a damned good explanation.
P.S. If you have any connections at all to Idaho, I urge you to use them to contact state legislators and the Governor’s office to urge them to stop HB-243.
The Idaho lobbyist database confirms that Haas represents Wonderschool.
Haas asserted that “You know, ratios are obviously a hot topic ... There will be a lot of discussion about linking ratios to safety, and there are studies that have linked ratios to quality, but not safety. Those two things are very, very different.” This is, to put it lightly, a rather questionable interpretation of the research base.
Indeed, even among various proposals to increase or adjust ratios, like what Iowa did in 2022, this bill is a massive outlier.
Also, as far as I can tell, eliminating mandatory ratios would put Idaho way out of compliance with its own Child Care and Development Fund state plan, which is the agreement between states and the federal government that enables the flow of federal child care subsidy funds. That means passing this legislation could potentially put the ~$50 million a year that Idaho receives in jeopardy.
In contrast, it’s worth noting there are states like New Mexico trying to go in the other direction. NM Secretary of Early Childhood Education and Care Elizabeth Groginsky recently wrote on LinkedIn that, “The New Mexico Early Childhood Education and Care Department is requesting a significant increase in our budget to lower ratios and group size for babies and toddlers because ‘low adult-to-child ratios and small group sizes are essential for supporting children’s health, safety and development…’”
I also do not excuse for a moment the Idaho legislators who introduced and are advancing the bill. The supposed rationale, if you’re wondering, is that this will create more of a ‘free-market’ system where parents can choose the child-to-adult ratio they prefer, but of course in the real world of intense supply constraints and information asymmetry, parents are going to have to send their kids to the program that actually has an opening, whatever the ratio.