A few state capitals are currently experiencing something subtly out of the ordinary. Three U.S. governors have started using OMEP’s child rights framework to change how their states define, finance, and legally safeguard early childhood education. These governors are working independently in states with disparate political cultures and financial realities. It’s the type of policy development that doesn’t make a lot of noise in Washington. However, those who are interested in education law have begun to take notice.
The World Organization for Early Childhood Education, or OMEP, has long maintained that early childhood care and education are rights rather than social programs. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a major source of inspiration for the framework they have developed around that argument, which views access to high-quality pre-primary education as a legal right rather than a choice made by the government. In theory, most nations have found it easier to accept this framing than in actuality. This entire discussion has traditionally been kept at a distance by the United States, which has never ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This is what gives the present moment a somewhat unexpected feel. There may be a political opening that didn’t previously exist due to the growing pressure surrounding early childhood access, which is being driven by workforce data, learning loss during the pandemic, and mounting evidence about brain development in the first five years of life. The governors who are taking this approach seem to be reading the same studies and coming to the same conclusion: the current legal framework for early education is insufficient to yield reliable results.
Practically speaking, OMEP’s framework provides a model for incorporating early childhood education into a state’s legal framework so that it is treated as a right rather than a service. That distinction is more important than it may seem. Depending on budget cycles, something that is presented as a service may be trimmed, scaled back, or reorganized. The state assumes a different kind of obligation when it is presented as a right, one that is more difficult to covertly defund during a financial crisis. Observing this unfold in state legislatures, it appears that some governors have concluded that the “optional program” model is no longer viable.
Here, the larger context is important. The UN Human Rights Council unanimously decided in July 2024 to start writing an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that would specifically acknowledge early childhood education as an international legal right. Although that process, which involves input from civil society organizations like OMEP, is still in its early stages, its existence provides domestic reformers with a tangible point of reference. It’s no longer merely an advocacy role. This concept is supported by a legitimate global legal movement, and policymakers at the state level are taking notice.
It’s still unclear if these three states will be able to enact laws that effectively codify this rights-based strategy or if the effort will falter in the face of political bargaining and financial opposition. It takes time to rewrite education laws. Political complexities surround funding guarantees. Additionally, the gap between “fully resourced program” and “legally recognized right” is a pitfall that numerous well-meaning reforms have previously encountered.
Nevertheless, this is worthwhile to watch. Instead of waiting for a federal policy that doesn’t seem to be coming, governors are reaching for international frameworks created by organizations like OMEP, which indicates a certain impatience with the speed of current structures. For many years, early childhood education in the United States has received insufficient funding and legal protections. There has never been a more compelling case for this to change. It’s a different matter entirely whether that argument is finally gaining the necessary political traction.
