As I mentioned yesterday, the Obama administration’s budget proposals for preschool raise as many questions as they answer. Here are a few at the top of my mind:
Will states bite? Getting new preschool slots for only 9 percent of the cost is an appealing prospect, but when you look at the quality requirements the administration is proposing, it seems very likely that many states would need to significantly increase what they currently spend per-pupil on preschool to qualify for funds. Combined with increasing the long-term commitment for states (ramping up to 75 percent of the cost in 10 years), it could make states hesitant to take the funds – not to mention Tea Party politics, continuing fiscal pressures, and other issues that might make some state leaders unlikely to invest more in preschool right now.
Can states that already serve all or most low-income four-year-olds in preschool use federal funds to reduce their current state spending on preschool? The administration’s budget document says that states that already serve all or most low-income 4-year-olds will be allowed to use federal funds to provide full-day kindergarten or serve 3-year-olds. But if states have already made preschool spending a priority and are spending a higher percentage of their budgets on early childhood than other states are, should they be allowed to use federal funds to invest in other priorities altogether? Some states that serve all or most 4-year-olds in pre-K have quality standards that fall short of those the administration proposes: Will states be allowed to use federal funds to raise quality in existing slots, rather than to expand access?
Who would get to offer programs? The administration’s materials say nothing about the types of providers (school districts, charter schools, Head Start, community-based child care programs, and preschools) that might be permitted to offer preschool using the federal matching funds. Presumably, the administration intends to leave much of the delivery decision to states, which is appropriate. At the same time, decisions about who can deliver the program, how programs are able to access funds, and how qualifying families and children access the programs have implications for quality, costs, and access. That’s not to say that some types of programs are better than others; there are examples of excellent preschools run by districts, community based programs, Head Start, and charter schools. Any federal preschool program should encourage states to allow a variety of quality providers – not just school districts or existing childcare providers – to offer preschool and hold all providers to the same standards for quality and outcomes.
Does the federal government intend to cover a significant portion of the cost of serving four-year-olds in perpetuity? The administration’s budget request covers 10 years and suggests that the federal share of the costs of preschool slots funded by the program will be 25 percent (for low-income students) by the end of that time period. This is significantly higher than the share of K-12 spending provided by the federal government (about 10 percent) but lower than the current federal share of all government spending on early childhood education (where federal funds account for the majority of public dollars). Does the administration believe that 25 percent is the “right” federal share of the cost to educate four-year-olds in the long-term?
Does this matter at all? A friend of mine quipped that proposing a cigarette tax as the funding mechanism at the federal level is a strong indicator that you’re not serious. Is the administration serious about this preschool proposal? Do they think it’s going to happen? Education insiders overwhelmingly think no, and the response to the budget from Republicans wasn’t exactly bursting with positivity. Did I just waste a bunch of time thinking and writing this post?
