With Congress pushing for reform of No Child Left Behind, Democrats have been calling for the expansion of federally-funded preschool programs. Some liberals are even advocating for an expensive universal preschool program. While this is unlikely to be approved at the federal level, it hasn’t stopped advocates from making their case at the state and local levels as well.
However, questions remain over how effective universal preschool would be. Studies have shown the program is effective at helping students in preschool, but that gains from the program are essentially gone by the third grade, or even the first grade. Others show that existing preschool programs are rife with fraud. For those that oppose universal preschool, there is plenty of evidence to make their case.
For conservatives trying to make the case against universal preschool, simply saying it won’t work isn’t enough. That strategy won’t win over anyone who thinks more has to be done for early childhood education. Instead, simple, conservative alternatives need to be proposed.
A new report from the American Enterprise Institute, entitled “An Education Agenda for the States,” does just that. Research Fellow Katharine Stevens authored a chapter on early childhood education and proposes viable reforms.
For example, conservatives could advocate for voluntary home-visiting programs. These programs would target infants and toddlers in low-income families. Participating families are visited at home regularly and get answers to questions on early learning, childhood health and other parenting issues. Some experts say helping at-risk children in preschool is actually too late to start boosting cognitive abilities. Targeted home visits at an even earlier stage in a child’s development would help more than universal preschool would.
When it comes to already-existing programs, conservatives should emphasize the need for more parental choice. Parents know their child best and can pick preschool programs that work best for them. Resources could be better spent expanding access to existing preschools rather than adding new government-run programs.
On that note, early childhood education leaders should be encouraged to innovate and provide unique alternatives to already-existing programs. Preschools shouldn’t be boxed into a one-size-fits-all concept to participate in government preschool programs.
That flexibility should be extended to preschool teachers as well. Not every preschool teacher needs a college degree. “Research shows that what counts is not what degrees teachers have but how they teach,” Stevens wrote. “That is especially crucial in early education where interactions between teachers and students, not content knowledge, is what drives success.” Requiring a college degree only ensures that otherwise-qualified teachers who can’t afford a degree will be forced to pursue other professions.
Perhaps most importantly, programs should be implemented at the state and local level. If the federal government must step in, it should only provide block grant funding to states, which allows state and local governments to utilize local knowledge in designing programs. State and locally-run programs would be more effective than an inflexible federal program.
Properly-designed early childhood programs can improve health, reduce crime and expand opportunities for low-income children. This is not to say that the government should spend new money on these programs, but that priorities could be shifted to emphasize the importance of these early childhood programs over others. A mass, federal government-provided preschool program is an oversimplified solution. Instead, nuanced solutions that are shown to work are better alternatives.
