The Affordability Threshold: Financial Models for a Sustainable Middle-Class Future in Childcare and Higher Education

Executive Summary

The American middle class is confronting a dual affordability crisis of unprecedented scale. The costs associated with two foundational pillars of economic security and upward mobility—quality childcare and higher education—have systematically outpaced income growth, eroding the financial stability of millions of families. This report presents a comprehensive analysis of this crisis, concluding that its origins lie not in isolated market fluctuations but in deep, structural failures: a fundamentally broken market in the childcare sector and a decades-long policy retreat from the public funding of higher education. For a typical middle-class family, these are no longer manageable expenses but financial burdens that dictate major life decisions, suppress economic potential, and threaten intergenerational progress.

The analysis quantifies the staggering inflation in both sectors. Childcare costs have grown at nearly double the rate of overall inflation for three decades, frequently consuming a share of middle-class income that is twice the federal benchmark for affordability. Similarly, tuition at public universities has escalated at a rate that dwarfs the growth in median household income, transforming a college degree from a stepping stone into a multi-generational debt sentence. This “lifecycle financial gauntlet” begins with exorbitant childcare fees that preclude savings, and culminates in crushing student loan debt, creating a cycle of financial precarity.

This report evaluates a portfolio of financial models and strategic interventions designed to restore genuine affordability. It examines domestic proposals centered on direct public investment, such as universal subsidy programs that cap childcare costs as a percentage of income and tuition-free models for public higher education. It also assesses market-based mechanisms, including employer-sponsored benefits and innovative financing tools like Income-Share Agreements (ISAs). To provide a crucial evidence-based perspective, the report includes detailed case studies of international systems in Canada, Germany, and France, which have successfully deployed public utility and social investment models to make these services vastly more affordable than in the United States. These international examples demonstrate that the affordability crisis is not an economic inevitability but a policy choice.

The primary recommendation of this report is the adoption of a multi-pillar strategy that fundamentally reframes these services as essential public infrastructure. For childcare, this involves a federal affordability guarantee that caps family costs, coupled with direct public investment to build supply and raise workforce compensation. For higher education, it requires a renewed commitment to public funding to reduce upfront tuition costs, a significant expansion of need-based grants to cover non-tuition expenses, and a radical simplification and reform of student loan repayment and forgiveness programs. By blending robust public funding to create a stable and affordable foundation with incentives for private and community-based innovation, the United States can construct a sustainable ecosystem that makes quality childcare and higher education once again accessible and affordable for the middle class.

Section 1: The Dual Crisis of Affordability

The financial strain experienced by the American middle class is not a generalized anxiety but a specific, measurable phenomenon driven by the hyperinflation of costs for essential services. Among these, quality childcare and higher education stand out as the two largest and most unmanageable expenses that define the modern family’s financial lifecycle. Their costs have not merely risen; they have detached from the economic reality of the families they are meant to serve, creating a dual crisis that begins at a child’s birth and extends decades into their adult life. This section quantifies the scale of this affordability crisis, demonstrating through extensive data that the unsustainability of these costs is a defining economic challenge for middle-class America.

1.1 The Childcare Cost Burden: An Impossible First Hurdle

For working families, quality childcare is not a luxury but a prerequisite for economic participation. Yet, its cost has become one of the most significant barriers to financial stability. High-quality programs now command prices that are untenable for a vast swath of the population, often rivaling or exceeding other major household expenditures.¹

Quantifying the Cost

The national average price of childcare in 2023 was a staggering $11,582 per year.² This figure, however, masks significant regional variations and the even higher costs associated with infant care. In Washington, D.C., for instance, the average monthly cost for a four-year-old can reach $1,893, while in states like Massachusetts and California, annual costs can exceed $20,000 and $16,900, respectively.³ The financial burden is so immense that in 38 states and the District of Columbia, the cost of infant care is now higher than the cost of in-state tuition at a public university.² This reality forces families into an impossible financial equation where the cost of care for their youngest children surpasses the cost of what is often considered the largest educational investment they will ever make. For a middle-income, two-parent family, childcare and education expenses (for those with the expense) constitute the third-largest share of child-rearing costs at 16%, behind only housing (29%) and food (18%).⁵

Benchmarking Affordability

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has established a widely accepted benchmark for childcare affordability: it should consume no more than 7% of a family’s household income.¹ By this standard, the American childcare system is failing catastrophically. Across nearly every demographic category, families paying for childcare spend, on average, a greater share of their income than the HHS benchmark.⁶ Working families with children under five who pay for care spend an average of nearly 10% of their income on it—40% more than what is considered affordable.⁶

The burden is disproportionately distributed. Middle-class families, defined as those earning between 200% and 399% of the federal poverty level, spend an average of 14% of their income on childcare, double the affordability standard. For low-income families, the situation is even more dire, with childcare costs consuming an average of 35% of their income—five times the HHS benchmark.⁶ This forces families into precarious situations, often relying on unpaid care from family or friends, or utilizing potentially lower-quality, unlicensed providers to maintain their employment.⁸

Cost Growth vs. Inflation

This crisis is not a recent development but the result of decades of cost growth that has far outpaced both general inflation and wage increases. Between 1991 and 2024, childcare and preschool expenses surged by an astonishing 263%. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a broad measure of inflation, rose by 135%.⁷ This means the cost of care has been rising at nearly double the rate of other goods and services, a trend confirmed by multiple analyses showing consistent price increases across nearly all U.S. counties and care types between 2013 and 2018.⁹ While broader inflation cooled to 5% in March 2023, the cost of early care and education registered an annual increase of 6.8%, the fastest in over 30 years, highlighting its unique and persistent inflationary pressures.¹¹

Macroeconomic Consequences

The unaffordability of childcare is not merely a private burden on individual families; it is a significant drag on the entire U.S. economy. The economic losses amount to an estimated $122 billion each year through lost earnings, reduced productivity, and lower tax revenue.⁹ When parents cannot find or afford care, they cannot work. This disproportionately affects women, who are more likely to make career-altering changes or exit the workforce altogether due to childcare issues. In 2023, an estimated 1.2 to 1.5 million workers, predominantly women, were affected each month, leading to a weekly loss of between 9 and 26 million potential work hours.⁷ The share of children under five living in a household where a caregiver had to make job changes due to childcare problems rose from 9% to 13% in just five years, a clear indicator of the growing strain on working families.⁹

1.2 The Higher Education Debt Spiral: A Mortgage Before the House

Just as the financial pressures of childcare begin to wane as children enter the K-12 system, families are confronted with the second great affordability crisis: higher education. The dream of a college degree, long considered the most reliable pathway to middle-class security, has been transformed into a primary source of debt and financial instability for millions.

Tuition Inflation

The escalation in college costs has been relentless. Over the 20-year period from 1999 to 2019, in-state tuition and fees at public National Universities—the institutions that serve the majority of American students—grew by a staggering 221%.¹² This rate of increase is more than four times the overall rate of consumer price index inflation during the same period, which was approximately 54%.¹² Looking back further, the trend is even more stark: the average annual cost of tuition at a public 4-year college is now 40 times higher than it was in 1963.¹³ From 2000 to 2022, the average annual tuition inflation rate at these institutions was 4.8%, growing at twice the rate of the CPI.¹⁴ Even after adjusting for currency inflation, college tuition has increased by 197.4% since 1963.¹³

The Total Cost of Attendance

Tuition and fees, while the largest component, are not the only costs that have soared. The total cost of attendance, which includes room, board, and other expenses, presents an even more daunting figure. Between 1963 and 2022, the cost of room and board nearly doubled in inflation-adjusted terms.¹⁵ This relentless rise in all cost components means that the price of a degree now consumes a dangerously large portion of a middle-class family’s income. In 1999, the average cost of tuition and fees at a public four-year institution represented about 18% of the median household income. By 2020, that share had more than doubled to over 35%.¹⁶ For private four-year institutions, the figure is even more extreme, representing 137% of median household income in 2020.¹⁶

The Debt Burden

Faced with prices that are impossible to cover out of pocket or with savings, families have turned to debt. This has fueled a national student debt crisis that now exceeds $1.7 trillion. The burden falls heavily on the students from the very middle- and lower-income families that higher education is supposed to empower. An analysis of borrowing patterns among Pell Grant recipients—a federal program targeted at low- and middle-income students—reveals a significant increase in the average amount borrowed over the past two decades. Even for students attending public four-year institutions, the average amount borrowed by Pell recipients rose by 13% in real terms between the 1995-96 and 2015-16 academic years.¹⁷ This debt follows graduates for decades, delaying homeownership, family formation, and retirement savings, and acting as a powerful brake on their economic mobility.

1.3 The Squeezed Middle: An Eroding Financial Foundation

The crises in childcare and higher education are not occurring in a vacuum. They are unfolding against a backdrop of decades of economic stagnation and growing inequality for the American middle class. The convergence of these trends has created a perfect storm of financial pressure.

Stagnant Incomes, Rising Costs

The fundamental challenge is that the costs of the most important investments for a family’s future have risen dramatically, while the resources available to pay for them have not.⁶ Over the past five decades, while household incomes have risen, the gains have been heavily skewed toward the top. The median income of upper-income households has climbed far more steeply than that of middle-class households.¹⁹ From 1979 to 2023, the real hourly wages for the middle-wage group (40th to 60th percentile) grew by only 17.4%, an anemic annual growth rate of just 0.4%.²¹ This slow wage growth has been unable to keep pace with the hyperinflation in sectors like education, healthcare, and childcare.¹⁸

A Shrinking and Less Wealthy Middle Class

The result of this economic squeeze is a steady and measurable decline of the middle class itself. The share of American adults living in middle-class households has contracted significantly, falling from 61% in 1971 to just 50% in 2021.¹⁹ This shrinkage is occurring as households move both up and down the economic ladder, but the financial standing of the middle has weakened considerably. The middle class’s share of aggregate U.S. household income has fallen steadily, from 62% in 1970 to 43% in 2014.²² The decline in their share of national wealth is even more pronounced, dropping from 37% in 1990 to only 26% in 2022, while the share held by the top 20% grew from 61% to 71% over the same period.²³

Childcare and Education as a Primary Driver of Instability

The unsustainable costs of childcare and higher education are not merely symptoms of this middle-class squeeze; they are primary catalysts. These are not discretionary expenses that can be easily cut from a family budget. The modern economy, with its reliance on two-income households to maintain a middle-class standard of living, makes childcare an essential expense for workforce participation.¹⁸ The cost is so significant that it can single-handedly determine a family’s class status. Simulations show that if all middle-class working families with young children had to pay typical market-rate childcare costs, an additional 21% of them would be pushed below the middle-class income threshold.⁸ This demonstrates that many families maintain their middle-class status only by forgoing formal, quality care—a choice that has long-term consequences for child development and parental careers.

These two crises are intertwined, forming a continuous and compounding financial burden that spans a family’s entire lifecycle. The exorbitant cost of childcare, which is highest for infants and toddlers, hits parents at the earliest stages of their careers when their earnings are typically at their lowest.² When a family is forced to dedicate 10% to 14% of its income to childcare, the capacity to save for long-term goals like retirement or a child’s future education is severely diminished.⁶ After nearly two decades of navigating these high costs, the family arrives at the second great financial hurdle—higher education—with depleted savings. During those same 18 years, college tuition has itself inflated at a dramatic rate.¹² The family is thus forced to take on substantial debt to fund their child’s education, passing a significant financial burden to the next generation. This new generation, now saddled with its own student debt, will in turn face the same childcare affordability crisis, perpetuating a debilitating intergenerational cycle of debt and financial precarity. This dynamic reveals that addressing only college debt or only childcare costs is an incomplete solution; the entire financial gauntlet must be addressed holistically.

Ultimately, the data points to a fundamental economic contradiction at the heart of the modern middle-class experience. Childcare has become essential infrastructure for labor force participation, and higher education has become a de facto requirement for achieving a middle-class income, given the significant earnings premium it confers.²⁴ Yet the price behavior of these services mirrors that of luxury goods, with inflation that far outpaces that of other necessities.⁷ Families are thus required to purchase goods priced as luxuries simply to maintain a basic middle-class existence. This structural mismatch explains the profound sense of financial hardship and the feeling of being “wiped out” that now defines the economic reality for millions of American families.¹⁸

Section 2: Deconstructing the Cost Drivers: An Analysis of Market and Policy Failures

The hyperinflation in childcare and higher education costs is not random. It is the direct result of unique economic structures and specific policy failures within each sector. While both are essential for family well-being and economic mobility, they suffer from distinct market and funding pathologies that make them uniquely susceptible to runaway price increases. Understanding these underlying drivers is critical to designing effective and sustainable financial models for affordability.

2.1 The Childcare Market Paradox: High Prices, Low Wages

The U.S. childcare market is a textbook example of what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has called a “broken market”.²⁶ It is defined by a central paradox: prices are crushingly high for parents, yet wages for the workers who provide the care are dismally low. This contradiction stems from the fundamental economics of the service itself.

A Broken Business Model

Childcare is an intensely labor-intensive service. Quality, particularly for infants and toddlers, is directly linked to maintaining low staff-to-child ratios and employing skilled, experienced educators.³ Unlike manufacturing or technology, productivity gains are difficult to achieve without compromising quality; one cannot “automate” the nurturing and developmental interaction that is the core of the service. Consequently, labor costs—salaries and benefits—constitute the overwhelming majority of a provider’s expenses, typically accounting for 65% to 76% of their budget.¹¹

This creates an impossible business model. To attract and retain qualified staff in a competitive labor market and reduce chronic staffing shortages, providers must raise wages from their current poverty-level averages. However, with thin-to-nonexistent profit margins, any increase in labor costs must be passed directly on to families in the form of higher tuition.¹¹ But families, as established in the previous section, are already at their financial breaking point. The market is therefore trapped in a dysfunctional equilibrium: prices are as high as parents can possibly bear, yet still too low to provide a living wage for the workforce. This dynamic leads to a constrained supply of quality care, with the number of licensed family childcare homes declining by 12% since 2019, and persistent staffing shortages across the sector.² The recent trend of rising wages for childcare workers, while a long-overdue and positive development for the workforce, has inevitably translated into even higher prices for families, further exposing the market’s fundamental unsustainability.¹¹

The Inadequacy of Public Support

The primary federal mechanism for addressing childcare affordability is the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), a block grant program that provides subsidies to low-income families. However, this program is profoundly underfunded relative to the scale of the problem. In fiscal year 2018, total federal funding for CCDF was approximately $8.1 billion. This amount represents less than 4% of the estimated $234 billion annual spending gap between what families in the middle class and below actually spend on childcare and what they would need to spend to access market-rate care.⁸ Due to insufficient funding and restrictive state-level eligibility rules, the program reaches only a fraction of federally eligible families—just 15% by some estimates.²⁸ The system is so under-resourced that it cannot function as a true market stabilizer or a reliable source of support for the middle class.

2.2 The Higher Education Funding Shift: From Public Good to Private Burden

The story of rising college tuition, particularly at public institutions, is fundamentally a story of retreating public investment. For much of the mid-20th century, states viewed higher education as a public good that powered economic growth and social mobility, and they funded their public universities accordingly. Over the past several decades, that consensus has eroded, and the financial burden has been systematically shifted from the state to individual students and their families.

The Retreat of Public Investment

The most significant driver of tuition inflation at public colleges and universities is the long-term decline in per-student state appropriations. As states have faced competing budget pressures and shifting political priorities, funding for higher education has often been one of the first areas to be cut. In response, institutions have had little choice but to increase tuition to make up for the loss of state revenue. Data from the College Board shows a clear trend: at public 4-year institutions, the share of total revenues derived from tuition rose from 31% in the 2006-07 academic year to 43% just a decade later in 2016-17.¹⁶ This is a direct transfer of the cost of higher education from the taxpayer base to the individual consumer.

The High-Tuition, High-Aid Model

This funding shift has given rise to the “high-tuition, high-aid” model. Public universities now set a high “sticker price” and then use a significant portion of the resulting tuition revenue to fund their own institutional grants and scholarships. This practice, known as tuition discounting, effectively asks families who can afford the full sticker price to subsidize students with greater financial need. While this allows institutions to maintain some level of socioeconomic diversity, it places middle-class families in a precarious “doughnut hole.” Their incomes are often too high to qualify for substantial federal or institutional need-based aid, but far too low to comfortably afford the high sticker price. They are left to bridge the gap with burdensome loans, depleting home equity, and draining retirement savings.

The economic structure of both childcare and higher education makes them susceptible to a phenomenon known as “Baumol’s cost disease.” This economic theory explains why costs in certain labor-intensive sectors, such as the performing arts, education, and healthcare, tend to rise faster than in goods-producing sectors like manufacturing. In sectors where technology can drive massive productivity gains—allowing one worker to produce significantly more output over time—wages can rise without a corresponding increase in the price of the final product. In contrast, sectors like childcare and higher education are human-centric; their quality is intrinsically tied to human interaction. The productivity of a childcare worker is not measured by the number of children they can supervise at once—in fact, quality demands the opposite, a low child-to-staff ratio. Similarly, while technology can supplement higher education, the core value of a seminar, a lab session, or faculty mentorship cannot be scaled up in the same way as car production.

Despite these low productivity gains, childcare centers and universities must still compete for labor in the broader economy. They must raise wages over time to attract and retain qualified teachers, professors, and staff who could otherwise work in more productive, higher-paying sectors. Because these rising labor costs cannot be offset by productivity gains, they must be passed on through higher prices. This structural economic reality explains why the cost inflation in these sectors is not an anomaly but a predictable outcome.⁷ It also carries a profound implication: market forces alone can never make these services progressively cheaper over time in the way they have for consumer electronics or other goods. Without a non-market funding source—namely, significant public investment—to decouple the price paid by families from the true and rising cost of production, these services will inevitably become ever more expensive relative to other goods, continuing to squeeze middle-class budgets.

Section 3: A Global Perspective: International Models for Affordability

The affordability crisis in the United States is not a universal condition. Many other developed nations have made different policy choices, treating childcare and higher education less as private consumer goods and more as essential public infrastructure. An examination of these international models provides powerful evidence that genuine affordability is achievable and offers a range of proven strategies for reform. By comparing the U.S. approach to that of its Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) peers, it becomes clear that the American situation is an outlier, driven by a unique underinvestment in these critical family supports.

3.1 The Public Utility Model for Childcare: Case Studies in Shared Investment

Data from the OECD paints a stark picture of American exceptionalism in childcare costs. For a typical couple with two children, both earning the average wage, net childcare costs consume an astonishing 20% of their disposable household income in the United States. This is dramatically higher than in most other developed countries. In Germany, the figure is a mere 1%; in France, it is 10%; and in Sweden, it is 5%.²⁶ For a single parent in the U.S., the burden is even more extreme, rising to 37% of disposable income.²⁶ This vast disparity is not accidental; it is directly correlated with the level of public investment. Countries with low costs for families are those that have committed to significant public spending on early childhood education and care, viewing it as a public utility that benefits society as a whole.³⁰

Case Study: Canada’s $10-a-Day System

In 2021, Canada launched a transformative national childcare initiative, the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care (CWELCC) system. Through a series of bilateral agreements, the federal government is investing approximately 30billionoverfiveyearsintransferpaymentstoitsprovincesandterritories.[32,33]ThecoregoalsaretoreduceaverageparentfeesforregulatedchildcaretoC10 per day by 2026 and to create 250,000 new affordable spaces.³⁴

The early results have been dramatic. Eight provinces and territories are already delivering care for an average of $10-a-day or less, with others having reduced fees by at least 50% from 2019 levels.³⁴ This has translated into massive savings for families, in some cases up to $16,200 per child per year.³⁴ The policy has had a measurable macroeconomic impact, contributing to a near 30% decline in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for childcare services since its peak and helping to push the labor force participation rate among mothers with young children to an all-time high of 79.6% in 2023.³⁷ However, the implementation has not been without challenges. The rapid reduction in fees has spurred a surge in demand that has outstripped the available supply of licensed care, leading to long waiting lists.³⁸ Furthermore, some childcare providers have reported financial strain, struggling to operate under the new fee caps without sufficient corresponding operational funding to cover rising costs like wages and rent.³⁹

Case Study: Germany’s Legal Entitlement and Subsidized Care

Germany has adopted a rights-based approach to childcare. Since 2013, every child over the age of one has a legal right to a space in a publicly subsidized daycare facility, a mandate so strong that parents can sue for lost wages if a spot cannot be provided.⁴⁰ This system socializes the cost of childrearing, resulting in extremely low out-of-pocket expenses for families—often just 1% of a dual-earner couple’s disposable income.²⁶

The outcomes of this investment have been profoundly positive. The expansion of subsidized early childcare has been shown to have a significant positive effect on maternal labor market outcomes, increasing both the employment rate and the number of agreed and preferred working hours for mothers.⁴² One study found that a 10 percentage point increase in public childcare coverage reduces a mother’s “child penalty”—the drop in earnings following childbirth—by 1.4 percentage points.⁴⁴ Beyond the economic benefits for parents, the German system has demonstrated powerful effects on child development. Research shows that longer attendance in public childcare significantly improves school readiness, language proficiency, and motor skills, particularly for children from immigrant and disadvantaged backgrounds. This suggests that universal childcare can be a highly effective tool for narrowing early achievement gaps and reducing lifetime inequalities.⁴⁵

Case Study: France’s Integrated Crèche and École Maternelle System

France provides one of the world’s most comprehensive and mature early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems. It is a multi-faceted, publicly funded model that provides a continuum of care from infancy through the start of primary school. For children under three, the system includes a mix of subsidized collective daycare centers (crèches) and licensed home-based childminders (assistantes maternelles). Fees for crèches are set on a national sliding scale based on family income, making them highly affordable.⁴⁷ For children aged three to six, France provides a universal, free, and compulsory preschool system known as

école maternelle. With an enrollment rate of nearly 100%, it is a fully integrated part of the public education system.⁴⁸

This system is widely credited with enabling one of the highest female labor force participation rates in Europe.⁴⁹ The quality is high, with preschool teachers required to have the equivalent of a master’s degree.⁵⁰ Research on child outcomes has been particularly compelling. Studies using the French Longitudinal Study from Birth (ELFE) have found that attending a

crèche has a significant positive effect on early language development. On average, children who attend a crèche can use 12 more words by age two than children cared for at home by their parents. This effect is especially pronounced for children from disadvantaged households, indicating that the system helps to level the playing field before formal schooling begins.⁵¹ The primary weaknesses of the French system are a persistent shortage of

crèche spots for children under three—demand still outstrips supply—and regional disparities in the availability of care.⁴⁸

Just as with childcare, the United States is an outlier in its approach to funding higher education. Many European nations, particularly Germany and the Nordic countries, treat higher education as a long-term social investment, funding their public universities primarily through taxes and charging little to no tuition.

Case Study: Germany and the Nordic Countries

In Germany, public universities are tuition-free for all students, including internationals (with the minor exception of the state of Baden-Württemberg, which charges a modest fee for non-EU students).⁵³ Similarly, countries like Norway offer tuition-free education to all students at public universities, while others like Finland, Sweden, and Denmark provide it for students from EU/EEA countries.⁵⁶ This approach is rooted in the belief that accessible education benefits the entire society by creating a skilled workforce and fostering innovation.

This model is not simply an expenditure but a strategic economic investment. A recent study by the German Economic Institute found that the lifetime tax contributions from international students who remain in Germany after graduation far exceed the public cost of their education, providing a return on investment of roughly eight to one.⁶⁰ The primary outcomes for students are significantly lower levels of debt and high graduation rates. In Germany and Denmark, tertiary graduation rates are among the highest in the OECD, partly because financial barriers are less likely to force students to drop out.⁶¹

However, this model involves clear trade-offs. It is supported by higher overall income tax rates than in the U.S..⁶¹ The reliance on government appropriations can also lead to lower per-student funding compared to the well-resourced American system, which can impact resources and facilities.⁶³ Furthermore, while free tuition removes a major financial barrier, it does not, on its own, solve deeper issues of social mobility. In several of these countries, young adults whose parents did not attend college remain less likely to do so themselves, suggesting that cultural and social factors also play a significant role.⁶¹ The experience of Sweden, which introduced tuition fees for non-EU students in 2011 and saw an immediate 80% drop in applications from that group, underscores how sensitive access is to price.⁶⁵

The consistent feature across these successful international models is the principle of universalism. By designing systems that benefit not just the poor but also the broad middle class, countries like France and Germany build a wide and durable base of political support. When everyone has a stake in a program’s success, there is a powerful political consensus to fund it adequately and maintain high standards of quality.⁴⁹ This creates a virtuous cycle: broad benefit leads to robust funding, which leads to high quality, which in turn reinforces broad political support. This stands in stark contrast to the targeted, means-tested programs common in the U.S., such as the CCDF, which serve a smaller, less politically powerful constituency and are therefore perpetually vulnerable to underfunding.⁸

The profound differences in cost burdens between the U.S. and its peers for the same fundamental services—educating a young child or a university student—lead to an inescapable conclusion. The American affordability crisis is not the result of an immutable economic law. The underlying costs of labor and facilities are broadly comparable across these developed nations. The key variable is the degree of public funding. The data reveals an almost perfect inverse relationship: the more the public invests as a society, the less individuals are forced to pay as families. Therefore, the crisis is the direct and predictable outcome of a decades-long policy choice in the U.S. to treat these essential services as private consumer goods rather than as the shared public infrastructure they have become.

Section 4: A Portfolio of Solutions for the United States

Addressing the dual affordability crisis in childcare and higher education requires a comprehensive portfolio of financial models and strategies. No single solution can rectify decades of market failure and policy neglect. Instead, an effective approach will require a combination of large-scale public investment to establish a foundation of affordability and quality, alongside targeted private sector and community-based initiatives that provide flexibility and innovation. This section evaluates a range of these potential solutions, assessing their mechanics, effectiveness, and feasibility within the American context.

4.1 Reimagining Public Investment (Government-Led Models)

Given the scale of the affordability gap and the structural nature of the cost drivers, a significant expansion of public investment is an indispensable component of any viable solution. This involves not only increasing funding for existing programs but also reimagining the federal government’s role in guaranteeing access to these essential services.

Childcare: Capping Costs and Building Supply

The most direct approach to solving the childcare crisis is to treat it as a public good, similar to K-12 education, through substantial federal intervention.

Direct Subsidies and Cost Caps: A leading proposal, reflected in legislation like the Child Care for Working Families Act, is to establish a federal entitlement that caps what families pay for care based on a sliding income scale.¹ The goal would be to ensure no family pays more than the HHS affordability benchmark of 7% of their household income, with the lowest-income families paying nothing.¹ This would require a massive infusion of federal funds to subsidize the true cost of care for providers. The effectiveness of such large-scale public investment was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when federal relief funding proved critical in stabilizing the fragile childcare sector, keeping providers from closing permanently and allowing parents to remain in the workforce.¹ States like Connecticut and Vermont have already begun implementing similar cost-capping models, financed through new state-level investments.¹
Investing in the Workforce and Supply: A cost-capping model can only succeed if there is an adequate supply of high-quality care, which is currently constrained by a workforce crisis driven by low wages. Therefore, a core component of any public investment strategy must be to use federal funds to directly increase compensation for early childhood educators.¹¹ By providing grants to states and providers with funds specifically earmarked for raising wages and benefits to be on par with similarly credentialed K-12 teachers, the government can address the root cause of staffing shortages. This would stabilize the existing supply and incentivize the expansion of new programs, both in centers and in family childcare homes.

Higher Education: Restoring the Public Promise

For higher education, public investment must tackle both the prohibitive upfront costs that deter enrollment and the long-term debt that burdens graduates.

Tuition-Free Public College: One of the most ambitious proposals is to establish a federal-state partnership to eliminate tuition and fees at public two- and four-year colleges and universities, mirroring the systems in Germany and several Nordic countries.⁶³ This would represent a fundamental return to the mid-20th-century vision of public higher education as a widely accessible public good. While it would dramatically reduce the need for student borrowing, implementation would require significant new federal spending and would need to address potential trade-offs, such as the risk of declining per-student funding if enrollment surges without a proportional increase in total investment.⁶³
Expanding Need-Based Grants (Doubling the Pell Grant): A more targeted but still powerful approach is to significantly expand the federal Pell Grant program, the cornerstone of need-based financial aid. Over the decades, the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has eroded dramatically. In the 1980s, the maximum award covered over half the cost of attendance at a four-year public college; today, it covers just 28%.⁶⁶ Advocates propose doubling the maximum award, which would restore much of its original value and significantly reduce the borrowing needs of low- and middle-income students.¹⁷ Research indicates that such an increase would not only improve access but also boost student outcomes, with studies showing that a $1,000 increase in grant aid can increase retention rates and decrease dropout rates.⁶⁷ This investment would also disproportionately benefit students of color, who are more likely to rely on Pell Grants and struggle with student loan debt.⁶⁶
Reforming Loan Repayment & Forgiveness: For students who still need to borrow, the federal government must provide a reliable and functional safety net.
- Income-Driven Repayment (IDR): IDR plans are a critical tool, preventing defaults by tying monthly payments to a borrower’s income.⁶⁸ However, the current system is a confusing thicket of multiple plans with varying terms and complex annual recertification requirements, which causes many borrowers to fall out of the programs or see their balances balloon due to negative amortization.⁶⁸ Radical simplification—consolidating the various plans into a single, more generous, and easy-to-understand option—and automating enrollment and recertification through data sharing with the IRS are essential for these plans to function effectively.
- Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF): The PSLF program, which promises debt forgiveness after 10 years of public service, is a powerful incentive for graduates to enter vital but often lower-paying fields. However, its implementation has been a catastrophic failure, marked by a convoluted and unforgiving regulatory framework and poor servicing that led to denial rates of over 98% in its initial years.⁷⁰ While recent administrative fixes have improved approval rates, fundamental legislative and regulatory streamlining is required to make the program’s promise a reality for the millions of public servants who rely on it.⁷²

Long-Term Wealth Building: “Baby Bonds”

A more foundational approach to affordability is to address the underlying wealth inequality that makes these large expenses so burdensome in the first place. The “Baby Bonds” proposal seeks to do just that by establishing a publicly funded trust account for every child at birth.⁷³ The initial endowment would be progressively seeded, with children from the lowest-income families receiving the largest amounts. These funds would be invested and allowed to grow over 18 years, at which point the young adult could access the capital for wealth-building activities such as paying for higher education without debt, making a down payment on a home, or starting a business. By providing this “start-up capital,” Baby Bonds aim to narrow the racial and class wealth gap and give the next generation the financial foundation needed to invest in their own human capital.⁷³

4.2 The Role of the Private Sector (Employer & Market-Based Models)

While public investment is necessary to set the foundation for affordability, the private sector and civil society can play a crucial role in expanding options, fostering innovation, and meeting the diverse needs of families.

Childcare: Corporate and Community Solutions

Employer-Sponsored Benefits: There is a strong and growing business case for employers to invest in childcare support for their employees. The lack of reliable childcare is a major driver of employee absenteeism, turnover, and reduced productivity.⁷⁴ Companies that offer childcare benefits—such as on-site or near-site care centers, subsidies or vouchers, or backup emergency care—report significant returns on investment through improved recruitment, higher retention rates (particularly among women), and a more focused and productive workforce.⁷⁵ International case studies show companies saving millions in turnover costs and dramatically improving their ability to attract and retain talent by making this investment.⁷⁵
Co-operative Models: Childcare co-operatives offer a powerful, community-driven alternative to traditional for-profit or non-profit centers. In a parent co-op, families pool their resources to jointly own and govern a childcare center, giving them direct control over quality and operations while often reducing costs through shared administrative duties or parent volunteering.⁷⁸ Other models include employee co-ops, where the workers at a company jointly own and operate an on-site center, and consortium co-ops, where multiple businesses in an area band together to create a shared facility for their employees.⁷⁸ These models foster a strong sense of community and empower parents and employees, though they require significant organizational effort to establish and maintain.⁸⁰
Technology: Technology can play a supporting role in making childcare operations more efficient, which can help contain administrative costs. Childcare management software can streamline tasks like billing, enrollment, attendance tracking, and parent communication.⁸¹ These tools can reduce the administrative burden on providers, freeing them up to focus on care and potentially reducing overhead. However, it is crucial to recognize that technology cannot solve the core cost driver in childcare: the need for well-compensated human educators in the classroom. It can optimize the business but cannot replace the essential, labor-intensive nature of the service itself.⁸⁴

Higher Education: Innovative Financing

Income-Share Agreements (ISAs): ISAs have emerged as a market-based alternative to traditional student loans. Under an ISA, a student receives funding for their education from their institution or a private investor. In return, they agree to pay back a fixed percentage of their post-graduation income for a set number of years.⁸⁶
- Arguments For: The primary benefit of ISAs is the downside protection they offer students. Because payments are tied to income, a graduate who is unemployed or in a low-paying job will have a low or zero payment obligation, reducing the risk of default.⁸⁷ This model also aligns the incentives of the educational institution with the success of its students; the institution only receives a strong return if its graduates secure well-paying jobs.⁸⁷
- Arguments Against: ISAs carry significant risks and drawbacks. For high-earning graduates, an ISA can end up being far more expensive than a traditional loan with a fixed interest rate.⁸⁷ The market is largely unregulated, with terms that can vary dramatically between providers, making it difficult for students to compare offers.⁸⁸ The model is also susceptible to adverse selection (where students who anticipate lower earnings are more likely to choose ISAs, making the financial model unsustainable for funders) and could potentially incentivize funders to push ISAs on students who would be better off with federal loans.⁸⁸

The sheer diversity of these proposed solutions underscores a critical point: there is no single silver bullet. An attempt to solve the affordability crisis with only one tool—whether it be federal subsidies, employer benefits, or market innovations—is destined to fall short. A government-only approach risks creating a monolithic system that may lack the flexibility to meet diverse family needs and could lead to supply shortages if not carefully managed.³⁹ Conversely, a purely private-sector approach, relying on employer goodwill or market-based financing, will never achieve the scale necessary to be a universal solution and will inevitably leave many families behind.⁷⁵

The most effective and resilient path forward lies in creating a “solution ecosystem.” In this model, large-scale public funding is not meant to replace all other options but to create a stable and affordable foundation for the entire system. By guaranteeing a baseline of affordability for all families (e.g., through a 7% income cap) and ensuring quality by investing in the workforce, the government can correct the fundamental market failures. Upon this stable foundation, a diverse range of delivery models—public, private non-profit, for-profit, employer-sponsored, and community-based co-operatives—can thrive, compete, and innovate. This integrated approach combines the scale and equity of public investment with the dynamism and responsiveness of private and community action, creating a system that is both universally accessible and tailored to individual needs.

Section 5: Strategic Pathways to Genuine Affordability: Recommendations and Implementation

Synthesizing the analysis of the affordability crisis, its underlying drivers, and the portfolio of potential solutions, this report proposes a strategic framework for restoring genuine affordability to both childcare and higher education. This framework is built on the principle that these services are no longer private luxuries but essential infrastructure for middle-class economic participation and societal well-being. The recommendations are organized into two comprehensive, multi-pillar strategies—one for childcare and one for higher education—designed to be implemented in concert to address the full lifecycle of a family’s financial challenges.

5.1 A Multi-Pillar Strategy for Childcare: Treating Care as Essential Infrastructure

To solve the childcare crisis, the United States must move away from its current fragmented and underfunded patchwork of programs and adopt a comprehensive public utility model. This requires a three-pillar approach that simultaneously addresses affordability for families, supply of care, and quality of the workforce.

Pillar 1: Federal Affordability Guarantee. The cornerstone of the strategy must be a federal program that guarantees affordable childcare for all working families. This should be structured as a sliding-scale subsidy system that caps family co-payments at a percentage of their income, with a ceiling of 7%—the federally recognized affordability benchmark. Families with the lowest incomes would pay nothing. This funding should flow through a simplified, unified system that is easy for both parents and providers to navigate, eliminating the bureaucratic hurdles that plague current subsidy programs.
Pillar 2: Direct Investment in Supply and Quality. Capping costs for families will create a surge in demand that the current fragile system cannot meet. Therefore, the affordability guarantee must be paired with a massive direct public investment in building the supply of high-quality care. Federal grants should be provided to states and directly to providers for two primary purposes:
1. Workforce Compensation: A significant portion of funds must be specifically earmarked for increasing childcare worker wages and benefits to achieve parity with similarly qualified K-12 public school teachers. This is the single most effective lever for reducing staff turnover, attracting new talent, and improving the quality of care.
2. Facilities and Expansion: Funds should also be available for the construction, renovation, and expansion of childcare facilities, particularly in “childcare deserts”—communities with an acute shortage of licensed providers.
Pillar 3: Incentivizing Employer and Community Participation. While the federal government must provide the foundational funding, private and community partners should be encouraged to contribute to a diverse ecosystem of care. This can be achieved by:
1. Enhancing Tax Credits: The existing tax credits for businesses that provide childcare support for their employees should be significantly expanded and made more generous to incentivize greater corporate investment in on-site care, subsidies, and backup care networks.
2. Supporting Co-operatives: The federal government should establish a grant program and technical assistance center to support the formation of new community-based childcare co-operatives, helping parent and employee groups overcome the initial organizational and capital hurdles.

5.2 A Ladder of Opportunity for Higher Education: A Debt-Free Framework

To restore the promise of higher education as a vehicle for upward mobility, policy must create a “ladder of opportunity” that makes a degree attainable without life-altering debt. This requires intervention at every stage of the student journey: access, persistence, and completion.

Rung 1 (Access): Make College Affordable at the Outset. The first step is to dramatically lower the upfront price of a public college education.
1. Tuition Reduction: A new federal-state partnership should be created with the goal of making tuition and fees at all public two-year community colleges free. For four-year public institutions, the partnership should aim to significantly reduce tuition for all students from low- and middle-income families.
2. Double the Pell Grant: Simultaneously, the maximum federal Pell Grant award should be doubled. This is critical because even with free tuition, students face substantial non-tuition costs for housing, food, transportation, and books, which are a primary driver of student debt. A more robust Pell Grant ensures that students from the lowest-income backgrounds can afford the full cost of attendance.
Rung 2 (Persistence): Protect Students While Enrolled. Affordability is not just about the initial price but also about ensuring students have the financial stability to complete their studies. Federal and state policy should support the expansion of programs that address student basic needs insecurity, including access to public benefits and emergency aid grants that can help students weather unexpected financial shocks without having to drop out.
Rung 3 (Completion): Create a Reliable Safety Net. For the millions of students who will still need to borrow, the federal loan system must provide a clear and reliable path to repayment that does not lead to financial ruin.
1. Simplify and Automate IDR: The complex web of Income-Driven Repayment plans should be consolidated into a single, simple, and more generous plan. Enrollment and annual income recertification should be made automatic for all borrowers by using data securely shared from the IRS, eliminating the administrative burdens that cause so many to fail to receive the benefits for which they are eligible.
2. Fix PSLF: The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program must be legislatively and regulatorily reformed to be simple, transparent, and reliable. The eligibility criteria should be clear, and the process for certifying employment and tracking qualifying payments should be streamlined to ensure that the promise of forgiveness made to public servants is a promise that is kept.

5.3 A Roadmap for the Middle-Class Family: A New Financial Reality

The implementation of this comprehensive framework would fundamentally alter the financial landscape for the typical American middle-class family. A family with young children would no longer face the impossible choice between a parent’s career and childcare costs that consume 15-20% of their income. With their payments capped at 7%, they would have thousands of additional dollars each year to save for a down payment on a home, invest for retirement, or simply build a cushion against financial emergencies. This newfound stability in the early years would change their entire financial trajectory.

As their children grow, the prospect of college would no longer be a source of dread. With tuition at public institutions significantly reduced or eliminated and a more robust Pell Grant covering living expenses, their child would be able to pursue a degree based on their aspirations, not on what their family can afford to borrow. They would graduate with little to no debt, free to start their career, launch a business, or enter public service without the crushing weight of student loans dictating their choices. This two-pronged strategy—addressing both childcare and higher education—breaks the intergenerational cycle of financial precarity. It re-establishes the conditions under which the middle class can not only survive but thrive, investing in the human capital of both parents and children to secure a more prosperous and equitable future.

The Widening Gap: Cost Growth vs. Middle-Class Income Growth (2000-2024)	Percentage Increase
Average Cost of Center-Based Infant Childcare (1991-2024)	263% ⁷
Average In-State Tuition & Fees at Public National Universities (1999-2019)	221% ¹²
Consumer Price Index (CPI) (1991-2024)	135% ⁷
Real Hourly Wage for Middle-Wage Group (1979-2023)	17.4% ²¹

International Childcare Affordability Snapshot (2022)	Net Childcare Cost as % of Average Dual-Earner Couple’s Income	Net Childcare Cost as % of Average Single Parent’s Income	Public Spending on Early Childhood Education (% of GDP)
United States	20% ²⁶	37% ²⁶	0.16% (Ireland, as a low-spending proxy) ³¹
Switzerland	32% ²⁶	18% ²⁶	Low (Implied) ²⁶
New Zealand	23% ²⁶	17% ²⁶	N/A
United Kingdom	16% ²⁶	20% ²⁶	0.6% ²⁹
Canada	19% (pre-reform) ²⁶	5% (pre-reform) ²⁶	N/A
France	10% ²⁶	6% ²⁶	N/A
Germany	1% ²⁶	1% ²⁶	N/A
Sweden	5% ²⁹	N/A	1.6% ²⁹
OECD Average	10% ⁹⁰	N/A	0.9% ³¹

Comparative Analysis of Financial Models for Affordability	Primary Beneficiaries	Core Mechanism	Key Advantages	Key Disadvantages/Risks	Scalability/Feasibility
Universal Childcare Subsidies (7% Cap)	Universal (greatest benefit to low/middle)	Price Cap / Direct Subsidy	Directly addresses affordability; builds broad political support; boosts maternal labor force.	High public cost; can create supply shortages if not paired with supply-side investment.	High (requires major federal legislation and funding).
Tuition-Free Public College	Universal (greatest benefit to middle/upper-middle)	Price Elimination	Dramatically reduces student debt; increases access and graduation rates; popular.	High public cost; may lower per-student funding; doesn’t cover living expenses; may not improve social mobility alone.	High (requires federal-state partnership and major funding).
Expanded Pell Grants	Low- and Middle-Income Students	Need-Based Grant	Highly targeted to those most in need; proven to improve persistence; reduces borrowing.	Does not address high sticker price; purchasing power can erode over time if not indexed.	High (requires congressional appropriation).
Employer-Sponsored Benefits	Employees of participating companies	Private Subsidy / Direct Provision	High ROI for employers (retention, productivity); meets specific workforce needs.	Not universal; creates inequality between workers at different firms; small businesses may be unable to offer.	Medium (can be scaled through tax incentives but will never be universal).
Income-Share Agreements (ISAs)	Students in high-earning potential fields	Income-Contingent Repayment	Aligns institution/funder incentives with student outcomes; provides downside risk protection.	Can be more expensive than loans for high earners; largely unregulated; risk of adverse selection.	Low (niche product, not a replacement for broad federal aid).
Co-operative Childcare Models	Members of the co-op	Shared Ownership / Pooled Resources	High parental control and involvement; can lower costs; builds community.	Requires significant organizational effort from parents/employees; difficult to scale.	Low (effective at a local level but not a national solution).

Cited works

Raising a Family Is Increasingly Expensive. The Child Care for Working Families Act Would Help. - The Century Foundation, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/raising-a-family-is-increasingly-expensive-the-child-care-for-working-families-act-would-help/
Child Care at a Standstill: Price and Landscape Analysis 2023 …, https://www.childcareaware.org/thechildcarestandstill/
Model this, child care vs. college costs - Marginal REVOLUTION, https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/03/model-this-child-care-vs-college-costs.html
Rising Cost of Child Care Services a Challenge for Working Parents - U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/01/rising-child-care-cost.html
The Cost of Raising a Child | Home - USDA, https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/cost-raising-child
Working Families Are Spending Big Money on Child Care - Center …, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/working-families-spending-big-money-child-care/
Crisis in Child Care - Rising Costs - SchoolWise Partners, https://www.schoolwisepartners.com/blog/rising-costs-in-childcare
Child Care Expenses Make Middle-Class Incomes Hard to Reach | Carsey School of Public Policy - University of New Hampshire, https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/child-care-expenses-make-middle-class-incomes-hard-reach
How the rising cost of childcare hurts parents’ job stability | PBS News, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-the-rising-cost-of-childcare-hurts-parents-job-stability
We analyzed 5 years’ worth of childcare prices. Here’s what we found. - DOL Blog, https://blog.dol.gov/2024/09/30/we-analyzed-5-years-worth-of-childcare-prices-heres-what-we-found
Child care prices, inflation, and the end of federal pandemic-era aid in five charts, https://equitablegrowth.org/child-care-prices-inflation-and-the-end-of-federal-pandemic-era-aid-in-five-charts/
20 Years of Tuition Growth at National Universities - Financial Aid Navigator, https://finaidnav.com/resources/story?title=20-Years-of-Tuition-Growth-at-National-Universities
College Tuition Inflation [2023]: Rate Increase Statistics, https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate
College Tuition Inflation Statistics - BestColleges.com, https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-tuition-inflation-statistics/
Cost of College Every Year Since the 1960s | BestColleges, https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-costs-over-time/
Why is the cost of college rising so fast? - SSTI, https://ssti.org/blog/why-cost-college-rising-so-fast
The Case for Doubling the Pell Grant - National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, https://www.naicu.edu/policy-advocacy/doublepell/making-the-case/
Is the Middle Class Worse Off Than It Used to Be? - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2020/ec-202003-is-middle-class-worse-off
How the American Middle Class Has Changed in the Past Five …, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/archive/fall-2022/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades
How the American Middle Class Has Changed in the Past Five Decades, https://www.pew.org/en/trust/archive/fall-2022/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades
Here’s How Much Income Has Changed for Low, Middle and High Earners | Nasdaq, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/heres-how-much-income-has-changed-low-middle-and-high-earners
What Is Middle Class Income? Thresholds, Is It Shrinking? - Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx
How has wealth distribution in the US changed over time? - USAFacts, https://usafacts.org/articles/how-has-wealth-distribution-in-the-us-changed-over-time/
Earnings by educational attainment - OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/earnings-by-educational-attainment.html
Education economic and social outcomes - OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/education-economic-and-social-outcomes.html
U.S. Childcare Cost Higher Than In Other Developed Countries - Voronoi, https://www.voronoiapp.com/society/US-Childcare-Cost-Higher-Than-In-Other-Developed-Countries-3027
Chart: U.S. Childcare Cost Higher Than In Other Developed Countries | Statista, https://www.statista.com/chart/33438/share-of-disposable-household-income-spent-on-childcare/
Child Care Subsidies: Supporting Work And Child Development For Healthy Families, https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20200327.116465/
Highest childcare costs and how countries are cutting them - The World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/07/highest-childcare-costs-by-country/
(PDF) OECD Estimates of relative affordability of childcare - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374153964_OECD_Estimates_of_relative_affordability_of_childcare
OECD Education at a Glance 2024 report - Early Childhood Ireland, https://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie/oecd-education-at-a-glance-2024-report/
Child care in Canada - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_care_in_Canada
Early Learning and Child Care Agreements - Canada.ca, https://www.canada.ca/en/early-learning-child-care-agreement/agreements-provinces-territories.html
Affordable child care, a stronger economy | Prime Minister of Canada, https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2025/03/06/affordable-child-care-stronger-economy
Toward $10-a-day: Early Learning and Child Care - Canada.ca, https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/campaigns/child-care.html
Measuring Matters: Assessing Canada’s progress toward $10-a-day child care - Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2023/10/measuring-matters-FINAL-October%2027%202023.pdf
Toward $10-a-day: An Early Learning and Child Care Backgrounder …, https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2025/03/toward-10-a-day-an-early-learning-and-child-care-backgrounder0.html
Setting the record straight on Canada’s $10 a day Child Care Plan, https://childcarenow.ca/2025/01/30/setting-the-record-straight-on-canadas-10-a-day-child-care-plan/
A Price to Pay: The Challenges of Canada’s $10/Day Childcare Policy - The Meliorist, https://themeliorist.ca/2024/03/30/a-price-to-pay-the-challenges-of-canadas-10-day-childcare-policy/
The Public and Private Logics of Child Care in Germany and the …, https://scholars.org/contribution/public-and-private-logics-child-care-germany-and-united-states
Child care - Make it in Germany, https://www.make-it-in-germany.com/en/living-in-germany/family-life/child-care
2|2019 Early child care and maternal employment: empirical evidence from Germany - IAB, https://doku.iab.de/discussionpapers/2019/dp0219.pdf
Early child care and maternal employment: empirical evidence from Germany - EconStor, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/203528/1/VfS-2019-pid-26963.pdf
The Effects of Public Childcare Expansion on Child Penalties - Evidence From West Germany* - Boston University, https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2023/07/PCC_CP_IED_WP_NayeonLim.pdf
Does Universal Child Care Matter? Evidence from a … - Anna Raute, https://annaraute.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/kiga_website_2013.pdf
Universal childcare: The potential to level the playing field between the rich and poor, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/universal-childcare-potential-level-playing-field-between-rich-and-poor
Socialist child care in Europe: Creche, Ecole maternelle, and French …, https://slate.com/human-interest/2012/11/socialist-child-care-in-europe-creche-ecole-maternelle-and-french-child-care-options.html
Holistic early education and care: Policy and practice in France 2017-2021 - RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2000/RRA2051-1/RAND_RRA2051-1.pdf
Childcare Policies in France: The Influence of Organizational Changes in the Workplace, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227095375_Childcare_Policies_in_France_The_Influence_of_Organizational_Changes_in_the_Workplace
How France is providing child care to a nation | childcarecanada.org, https://childcarecanada.org/documents/research-policy-practice/09/11/how-france-providing-child-care-nation
Attending a childcare center in France : a positive effect on early …, https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/demographic-facts-sheets/focus-on/day-care-positive-effect-on-language-development-especially-for-disadvantaged-children/
Unequal Access to Day Nurseries and Related Economic Issues, https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/Articles/2ea63cd7-d723-43f0-b9d1-5be902f70297/files/799baabc-af73-4191-95e8-030ad64afcf0
www.mygermanuniversity.com, https://www.mygermanuniversity.com/articles/tuition-free-universities-in-germany-taught-in-english#:~:text=Public%20universities%20in%20Germany%20are%20tuition%2Dfree%20for%20ALL%20students,pay%201%2C500%20%E2%82%AC%20per%20semester)..)
200+ Tuition-free Universities in Germany taught in English, https://www.mygermanuniversity.com/articles/tuition-free-universities-in-germany-taught-in-english
Tuition-Free Universities in Germany: A Guide for International Students - Expatrio, https://www.expatrio.com/about-germany/tuition-free-universities-in-germany
Free Degrees! And Other Reasons to Study in Nordic Countries - Top Universities, https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/free-degrees-other-reasons-study-nordic-countries
European Countries With Free College for 2025: Key Factors to Consider - Research.com, https://research.com/universities-colleges/european-countries-with-free-college
Countries With Free College: Where Students Pay No Tuition Fees - Beyond The States, https://beyondthestates.com/countries-with-free-college/
Tuition-Free Universities in Finland, Norway, and Germany for 2025 - Mastersportal, https://www.mastersportal.com/articles/1042/tuition-free-universities-in-finland-norway-and-germany.html
International Students Power Germany’s Economic Engine, https://etias.com/articles/international-students-power-germany%E2%80%99s-economic-engine
Does Free College Work? Lessons From Europe | The Public Purpose, https://thepublicpurpose.com/2021/09/27/does-free-college-work/
Education in Norway: Free Tuition Eradicates Poverty and Inequalities - The Borgen Project, https://borgenproject.org/education-in-norway/
How free college tuition in one country exposes unexpected pros and cons, https://hechingerreport.org/free-college-tuition-one-country-exposes-unexpected-pros-cons/
Germany proves tuition-free college is not a silver bullet for America’s education woes, https://qz.com/812200/is-free-college-possible-germany-shows-there-are-downsides-to-tuition-free-college
International student tuition fees: reflections from Sweden, https://www.eaie.org/resource/sweden-tuition-fees.html
PELL GRANTS HELP KEEP COLLEGE AFFORDABLE FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Pell-Grants-Help-Keep-College-Affordable-for-Millions-of-Americans-logo.pdf
Why We Should Double the Pell Grant – Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-we-should-double-the-pell-grant
Income-Driven Repayment Plans: Pros and Cons for Borrowers, https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/pros-and-cons-of-income-driven-repayment-plans-for-student-loans
Roadmap for Reform: Making Income-Driven Repayment Work Better for Borrowers, https://ticas.org/affordability-2/student-aid/roadmap-for-reform-making-income-driven-repayment-work-better-for-borrowers/
“America’s Unforgiving Forgiveness Program: Problems and …, https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol72/iss3/6/
What’s Wrong with Public Service Loan Forgiveness and How to Fix It Tyler Curtis & Alan White1 Table of Contents - AALS Annual Meeting, https://am.aals.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/12/AM20RegulatoryAbdicationWhitePaper.pdf
Public Service Loan Forgiveness: What It Is, How It Works - NerdWallet, https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/public-service-loan-forgiveness
Baby Bonds - Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy, https://racepowerpolicy.org/baby-bonds/
Why Assistance With Childcare Is So Important to Employees, https://nationalfund.org/why-assistance-with-childcare-is-so-important-to-employees/
The Business Case for Childcare - IWPR, https://iwpr.org/the-business-case-for-childcare/
Tackling Childcare: The Business Case for Employer-Supported Childcare, https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2017/tackling-childcare-report
The Business Case for On-Site Child Care | Oregon.gov, https://www.oregon.gov/boli/employers/Documents/onsite-childcare-102015.pdf
Cooperative Models — Parent Cooperative Preschools International, https://www.preschools.coop/cooperative-models
Finding the Magic in a Collective Model for Childcare and Co-Working - Next City, https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/finding-the-magic-in-a-collective-model-for-childcare-and-co-working
Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model in Preschool - ERIC, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1100961.pdf
Child Care Technology Your Center Needs | Procare Solutions, https://www.procaresoftware.com/blog/child-care-technology-your-center-needs/
How technology can help manage your daycare and childcare center - iCare Software, https://icaresoftware.com/how-technology-can-help-manage-your-daycare-and-childcare-center
Daycare Technology That Will Simplify Your Life - Brightwheel, https://mybrightwheel.com/blog/top-5-tools-for-running-a-daycare-center
What Are Child Care Technology Solutions? A 2024 Guide for Government Leaders, https://www.wonderschool.com/blog/state-local-government-resources/the-best-child-care-solutions-for-government-leaders
Some Technology Is Better Than None: A Dosage-Based Approach - Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2025/01/06/some-technology-is-better-than-none-a-dosage-based-approach-to-technology-in-child-care/
Brief: Everything Entrepreneurs Need to Know About Income Share Agreements, https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/education/brief-everything-entrepreneurs-need-know-about-income-share-agreements
Income Share Agreements: What’s Risky, What’s Promising, and …, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2019/06/income-share-agreements-isas-whats-risky-whats-promising.html
Income Sharing Agreements (ISAs) - Labor of Change (LoC), https://www.laborofchange.org/blog/income-sharing-agreements
What’s It Like to Have an Income Share Agreement? We Asked the Students., https://www.jff.org/students-share-views-on-income-share-agreements/
Australia ranks #2 in world for most expensive childcare - The Parenthood, https://www.theparenthood.org.au/new_oecd_data

July 21, 2025

For a typical middle-class family, the costs of quality childcare and higher education are becoming financially unsustainable. What are the most effective financial models or strategies to make them genuinely affordable?