The New Republic, usually a liberal publication, recently published an article recommending vouchers instead of universal pre-K in public institutions.
Defending the Early Years, an organization that fights for developmentally appropriate education for young children, issued the following response:
The experts at Defending the Early Years find fault with the premise of the article which pits family support and high-quality preschool education against one another.
Haspel is correct, we need greater family support, starting with maternal and paternal paid leave for the first year of life; but we also need publicly funded rich, progressive, play-based early care and education for young children until they start formal school. As we learned after Hurricane Katrina, giving people money does not ensure that their life will improve.
The U.S. has never had the political will to spend the billions of dollars it would take to provide universal coverage. Recognizing the estimated $70 billion a year “preschool market,” investors are happily filling in the gaps in an ECE mixed-market system that has long been broken.
Haspel fails to realize that by ensuring every child has access to high-quality, fully-funded, play-based early care and education, we are doing more for parents than simply giving them a voucher. Voucher experiments in DC and other cities prove that rarely do they cover the full cost of tuition. Parents will be expected to find care that matches the amount of the voucher or supplement the additional costs out of their pocket. This does not help families but instead leaves them trapped between choosing affordable care that could be lower quality or paying out of pocket for high-quality care. Instead of expecting states to abandon their role in ensuring every child begins with a solid foundation of high-quality early care and education experiences, we should encourage direct support to families and demand each state provide access to early care and education. The only thing wrong with a demand for universal pre-k is that play-based programs are often excluded by states that prefer academic instruction. If giving parents a choice is truly the end goal then we would support parents who chose play-based programs over academic instruction. And we would support parents who chose universal pre-k over vouchers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Is Dey DRUNK?
This is a good pair of articles to bring out the complexities of the issues. The New Republic article has some good points to make, despite the unfortunate, seemingly haphazard use of the term “vouchers.”
I wonder if maybe they’re a newcomer to early-childhood issues; they’re framing it all wrong. As noted by DEY, this is not a zero-sum Q with universal PreK on one side and govt support of families w/young children on the other. We have some social safety net in place, and it needs beefing up. [The child-care tax credit in particular strikes me as weak: a minimum-wage single Mom doesn’t pay high taxes anyway– clears next to nothing after paying child-care, regardless of tax break.] Universal PreK proposes spending more on public ed, not diverting existing safety-net funds. New Republic says plunking a kid into PreK at age 4 is “bldg a house on sand” w/o proper prep– (a)sez who, (b)straw man.
Nevertheless, I’m leery of ‘universal Prek.’ It’s no good to say we’re late to the game as an OECD country. Any Euro social democracy will do a better job than we will at choosing quality preschool programs and ensuring equitable access to them. Given our ed-policy predilections of the last 30 yrs, we’re certain to louse things up badly. Almost any method that simply puts more $ into needy pockets for childcare would be better than fed/ state ‘evidence/ outcomes-based’ preK programs– except vouchers, which are worse.
I disagree w/DEY’s last few sentences [starting w/ “The only thing wrong with a demand for universal PreK…”]. Lots more can go wrong w/govt-supported presch programs, since we allow private interests to dictate public-goods policy. We can ‘support parents who chose play-based programs over academic instruction,’ and end up w/play-based programs that use wrist/ ankle/ electrode devices attached to kiddies, broadcasting via wifi which ‘play’ activities they choose, w/algorithms suggesting anything– from what products to sell schools/ parents– to whether play choices indicate sufficient SEL achievement to justify supporting the school.
Based on my experience consulting in rural NE: two major political problems public schools face in implementing Universal Pre-K are legacy pre-schools and the limited hours Pre-K programs offer. If Universal Pre-K is going to put “Susie Jones’ Nursery School” out of business it will not get local support… and if the Pre-K program is limited to six hours— or even worse half-a-day— working parents are not going to sign on. Further complications involve space constraints and bussing of three year olds… Universal Pre-K is a good idea… getting it off the drawing board is going to be daunting.
And here’s a tough question: if public education received additional money would those dollars be better spent equalizing the funding for schools, paying teachers and other school personnel a living wage, or expanding to lower grade levels? Alas, we ARE facing a zero-sum game in school funding so these questions need to be addressed.
“The only thing wrong with a demand for universal pre-k is that play-based programs are often excluded by states that prefer academic instruction. ”
Tennessee is one of these states. At this point, I cannot decide, which one is the greater evil: universal academic pre-K or no pre-K at all.
Excellent point. DEY calls for “high-quality” universal pre-k when “high-quality” is often code for standards-aligned. DEY has a certain admirable vision of early childhood education, but they are providing rhetorical support to to the other side.
Great points, wgersen. Transportation especially would be thorny in rural areas. I imagine PreK would only work if added to existing elemschs w/tykes on same schedule/ buses.
It’s easier to do in a densely-populated state like mine.
Here in NJ there are once again– since 2014– truly excellent guideline-style stds for preschools. They also list 4 “canned curricula” meeting their specs, one of which gives more than lip-service to “play.” However, there was a decade where old [good] preschool guidelines were replaced by just the “lip-service” canned curricula, plus an onerous NCLB/CCSS-style accountability sys for preschools accepting state tuition-subsidy. I noticed they added a curriculum supv in 2014 at the one subsidized PreK I visit. There does seem to be a transition going on there– toward less cookie-cutter quasi-acad activity– but it’s slow.
Newark has 83 free PreK’s [E Orange & Jersey City, 10 ea, etc] for resident 3& 4 y.o.’s. It’s a 6-hr day; many have onsite extended hrs for extra– counties offer subsidies for that to low& mod-inc families. Many NJ cities have a few free PreK’s; more are needed, but funds seem to be forthcoming [Franklin, Newton, & Ogdensburg were just approved].
And even wealthy districts like mine offer free 4-y.o. PreK for kids w/SpEd needs. But adding “universal PreK” to district budget would be (as you note) an unwelcome intrusion on a well-established network of privates, co-ops, daycares etc.
In my community in CA, we only have enough facilities (literally, the buildings) to house 50% of this age group in preschool. Even if the parents had vouchers, half of them would have nowhere to go. We don’t have unused buildings in CA at affordable prices! Even in-home care is almost always full, and it’s not unusual for parents to begin to look for childcare the minute they find out they are pregnant, as it can take a year or more to get off the waiting list for daycare. A voucher wouldn’t come close to covering the costs of new buildings or renovating existing buildings to be suitable for preschool education. We’d need a lot more than vouchers.
While I agree with the premise that Good Quality Pre-K should be provided by the city, in the current situation I am pro voucher. New York City’s mayor still champions Common Core. Kindergarten is still the new first grade and pre-school exists to prepare children for that kindergarten. Public provision should not be confused with the provision of quality education. Until the pre-K curriculum provided matches the standards to which DEY advocates, parents should be given the tools of choice for their children instead of leaving it up to the government which is not yet serving our children in the manner that is best for them.
As soon as you say this, you must also accept the fact that you make an anti-democratic, pro-privatization statement.
It’s impossible to say “for now, I am choosing vouchers”, and expect any kind of understanding from others, since you are declaring a choice at the expense of 95% of the kids, including the most vulnerable ones, hence your choice is selfish.
The only possible action, consistent with democratic values, is a joint one against vouchers and the Common Core System.
It’s important to realize (and internalize) that the ultimate goal of the Common Core system and vouchers are exactly the same: privatization.
Ergo, we have no choice but fight against both forms of privatization. Everything else is selfish, and hence won’t be tolerated by 95% of the population.