The volume of the pre-K discussion in 2021 is easily forgotten. Publicly funded preschool is an economic necessity, not a luxury, according to Joe Biden, who was speaking at a podium. Two hundred billion dollars was also attached, along with the assurance that five million children who are currently excluded from all public options would at last have a seat somewhere. That money did not move after four and a half years. As Manchin moved, the bill shattered and the portion that everyone believed to be secure slipped under.
The second Trump administration followed. There wasn’t much debate over universal pre-K; rather, it was just ignored. No public funeral, no dramatic reversal. Just not there. The World Organization for Early Childhood Education (OMEP), which has been promoting this concept in the US for years, has continued to knock in the absence of this. An international organization with chapters in more than 70 countries lobbying a Washington that has essentially stopped answering the phone is an odd sight.
Speaking with experts in this field, it seems that pre-K suffered as a result of Biden’s plan’s expansion. It lived and died with everything else when it was bundled into Build Back Better. Even when the proposal was still in its early stages, Sue Renner, a member of Colorado’s Early Childhood Leadership Commission, expressed concern that it would only provide funding to public schools, starving home-based providers, church basements, and small businesses in places like Grand Junction that look after the children of night shift workers. Her caution hasn’t faded. The gaps she described have, if anything, gotten bigger.
It should be noted that the research is more messy than the slogans. Children in the state pre-K program actually did worse on third- and sixth-grade exams than children who were turned away, according to a Tennessee randomized study. A Boston study found significant increases in SAT participation and college attendance but no increase in test scores. Which is it, then? Most likely both, depending on the family, the staff, the program, and the hours. The truth is that we still don’t know enough, and uncertainty has turned into a handy justification for doing nothing.
OMEP consistently emphasizes that the rest of the developed world has long since realized this, but it gets lost in the political crossfire. Japan, Sweden, Germany, and France. Their initial studies weren’t flawless. They created systems, made necessary adjustments along the way, and acknowledged that some early childhood investment is better than none. While its own toddlers age out of the window where it matters most, America continues to treat pre-K as a pilot program that requires another decade of data.
The federally supported mixed-delivery model that OMEP promotes—public, private, faith-based, and home-based—isn’t particularly radical. Its practicality is almost boring. Integrate pre-K into already-existing daycare facilities. Head Start seats are paired with federal subsidies. Allow parents to choose what works for a workday that doesn’t end at noon. It’s difficult to ignore how frequently the most clever version of a concept is also the least exciting from a political standpoint.
This has now been passed by two administrations. A generation of four-year-olds who did not receive what was promised represents the real cost of waiting. Something must give, most likely very soon.
