Universal Pre-Kindergarten: Pros, Cons, and the Bottom Line

Introduction 

The universal pre-kindergarten policy is geared at providing a year of education before children commence their kindergarten learning. State governments are the primary funders of the policy’s programs. Currently, the programs are being implemented in public schools under different programs as informed by the diverseness of state education structures. States are funding the universal pre-kindergarten a variety of ways such as taxes on tobacco, special incomes like lotteries, and public-private partnerships (“Pre-K Matters,” 2019). Voluntariness is another fundamental principle of the universal policy. 

The policy is not mandatory in that pre-kindergarten education programs are open to age-appropriate children irrespective of their social class. Universal pre-kindergarten programs are motivated by the need to prepare young children for life at school before they enrol for kindergarten education ( Best & Cohen, 2013 ). The universal pre-kindergarten policies are essential because they give learners a strong base of cognition, social, and psychological skills upon which the other advanced academic skills will be built. Consequently, developers of this policy envisioned that more excellent academic and social achievement would be gained. 

Background of Universal Pre-Kindergarten Policy 

Globally, the idea of pre-kindergarten learning can be traced to the 1800s. During this time, the demand for daycare was growing exponentially as mothers of young children needed places to leave their young ones as they worked in the industries which eventually led to the rise of daycares (Cross, 2008). During World War II (WWII), the demand for daycare services ballooned as women were engaged in the factories while men had to go to the battlefield (Cross, 2008). In the US, the first publicly financed preschool program was inaugurated in 1965 by President Johnson. The program named Head Start was on a half-day basis and targeted children from a low-income background. Under the headship of Sargent Shriver, the Head Start program aimed at giving children from disadvantaged backgrounds comprehensive child development, which was a way of compensating for inequality in the American society (Cross, 2008). The preschool program was expensive since, between the 1940s and 1950s, federal grants were not renewed after WWII ended. Also, during this time, few women worked outside of their homes, and therefore there was no need for preschool care (Cross, 2008). Over the years, the concept of pre-kindergarten education now under the principle of universalism has continued to evolve. Unlike the mid-20 th century, in modern-day society, there is a need for a universal pre-kindergarten education, which is informed by factors such as the modern-day tight working conditions and persistent disparities in society. 

Head Start, as the precursor to the contemporary universal pre-kindergarten education, was established to prepare children to become better placed to start elementary learning. Developed during a time when the country was fighting against poverty, the Congressional Committee on Education viewed the program as a way of making education as a tool to bring equality in American society (Cross, 2008). This is because the program predominantly targeted children from low-income families. Fast-forward in 2001, new education reforms were introduced under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which primarily focused on addressing the needs of the youngest of school members. The NCLB also aimed at improving their capacities to perform well in elementary school (Cross, 2008). The law is based on the presumption that all children can learn what the schools have to teach. Ground zero for this objective was designated to be the policy’s programs. In 2013, President Obama introduced his proposal for universal preschool education for all that has gradually taken root across most states in the US. 

President Obama viewed universal pre-kindergarten programs as a way to have a step towards the holistic development of young children while also reducing the disparity between the poor and the affluent in society. The proposal was to have a federal-state collaboration that would ensure superior prekindergarten learning for all US children of four years of age (“ US Department of Education," 2016 ). As of 2016, all but four states heeded to President Obama's proposal by offering pre-kindergarten programs to all young children within their boundaries. In the 2015-2016 financial year, states collectively bettered their investments in the universal pre-kindergarten programs by almost 12% from that registered in the previous budget year (“ US Department of Education," 2016 ). Statistics indicate that by 2015, states had enrolled an additional 48,000 pre-kindergarten learners in state-run schools (Parker, Keily, Atchison & Mullen, 2019). As with the Head Start program, the universal pre-kindergarten policy, as envisioned by the Obama administration, is geared at providing a strong foundation to every child before they begin their elementary education. 

Fundamentally, the policy focuses on providing underserved children with high-quality learning (Parker et al., 2019). This does not mean that only children from underprivileged families are the only priority, but the policy gives an umbrella cover to all children irrespective of their race, income background, status, or language. Only Idaho, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Wyoming did not provide state funding for pre-kindergarten programs (Parker et al., 2019). During the same period, states increased their funding by approximately 3.42% compared to the previous financial year (Parker et al., 2019). As previously stated, states use different methods to fund pre-kindergarten education, with at least ten states integrating these programs in their state education financing formulas (Parker et al., 2019). Other states use methods such as lottery funds and tobacco taxes, with the most common approach being legislative appropriation (Parker et al., 2019). It is thus apposite to conclude that the universal pre-kindergarten policy is gradually becoming entrenched through the use with the few states left behind expected to follow suit in the future. 

Universal Pre-Kindergarten Policy Stakeholders 

After the inception of the universal preschool policy, the federal and state governments became its primary stakeholders. The key mandate was to implement and fund the programs. The federal government operates the Preschool Development Grants, which are managed by the US Department of Education and Health and Human Services (“ US Department of Education," 2016 ). The federal government, through these two departments, monitors the implementation of the policy throughout the US. However, under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the mandate of the federal government was significantly reduced, especially regarding its accountability oversight role (“ US Department of Education," 2016 ). The state governments have the greatest responsibility as far as universal pre-kindergarten policy implementation and funding is concerned. 

Since the early 2000s, there have notable changes to the funding of the preschool programs by states. With the reducing involvement of federal government in the implementation and financing of these programs, most states have devised new methods of achieving these goals (Friedman-Krauss, Barnett, Garver, Hodges, Weisenfeld & DiCrecchio, 2019). From fully funding to the use of legislative appropriation, state governments are inarguably the significant stakeholders in pre-kindergarten education. Also, local authorities are working to boost the contributions of state governments. Many city authorities are stepping up to exceed what their respective state governments are providing. Such cities include New York City, Boston, Seattle, Cleveland, and San Francisco, among others which are boosting preschool budgets in their jurisdictions (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2019). States have also made determined efforts to improve preschool programs. In the 2017-2018 fiscal year, 28 states increased their financing levels for universal pre-kindergarten programs (Parker et al., 2019). The funding of pre-kindergarten programs by states and close monitoring of the same by the federal government through the US Department of Education and Health and Human Services makes the two top authorities the leading stakeholders in the universal pre-kindergarten policy. Save for above mentioned four states; others are in support of perpetuation of the policy as cascaded down by the federal government. 

The Alternative to the Universal Pre-kindergarten Policy 

Targeted pre-kindergarten education could be a viable alternative to the universal one. Generally, early childhood education is a cost-effective strategy for boosting the nation's economic growth by giving children a firm educational foundation. However, the implementation of the programs has exhibited a readiness gap between children from underprivileged and wealthy families (Cascio, 2017). The gap is a pointer to the need to prioritize children for low-income backgrounds since they seem to struggle with the demands of the programs from the early stages (Cascio, 2017). Targeted preschool policies are designed to address such gaps, with the state of Tennessee being an example of this approach. Such programs consider social-cultural and economic factors that define the background of a child. A child from a family with income below the poverty level cannot have the same exposure with a child from a financially well-off family. Therefore, placing the two children under a universal pre-kindergarten program is bound to disadvantage the one from an underprivileged family. Moreover, research has shown that children from affluent families reap little from universal pre-kindergarten programs benefits as compared to their counterparts from low-income families due to their privileged exposure (Cascio, 2017). Hence, this strengthens the targeted pre-kindergarten strategy, which requires the federal and state government to tailor the policy for maximum benefit for children from poor backgrounds. For example, state governments can give vouchers to these children to attend privately run pre-school programs that have high-quality learning. Also, states can expand the capacities of pre-kindergarten institutions in high poverty areas by employing highly trained and certified teachers, limit the size of classes, and institute regular reviews. The federal government, on its part, can create more grants to fund the universal pre-kindergarten policy implementation by the states. 

Achievement Status of the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Policy 

Generally, implementation of the universal preschool policy has primarily been successful expect in the four states that have not implemented the policy. On the child development front, research indicates that the policy has been instrumental in preparing students for elementary education. Moreover, the policy continues to generate lifelong benefits on learning progress and developmental outcomes of children ( Meloy, Gardner & Darling-Hammond, 2019 ). Universal pre-kindergarten programs are disrupting the cognitive development between children from underprivileged and wealthy families. In the absence of these programs, this gap would continue to grow with its adverse effects spilling over to elementary and future academic life ( Meloy et al., 2019 ). According to Casio (2019), state-funded universal pre-kindergarten programs have progressive impacts on 4-year old children in that the reading and mathematics skills of these children are greatly enhanced. The study by Casio also notes that children from poor backgrounds benefit more from the programs than their counterparts from affluent backgrounds. The research thus agrees with the previous assertion that targeted pre-kindergarten policy would have better results than the universal one. Nevertheless, the all-encompassing pre-kindergarten policy is gradually contributing to the equality agenda by giving all children an equal head start to academic life. 

Progressively, the universal pre-kindergarten policy is becoming entrenched in the US. As of 2017, 60% of the US cities' population had access to pre-kindergarten programs. These programs cover about 30% of the country's four-year-old population (Doggett & Wat, 2019). Of this portion of the subject population, children from less privileged families benefited more than their colleagues. Washington, D.C pre-kindergarten programs serve almost the entire target population. This is also replicated in states such as Florida and Oklahoma. Due to the proliferation of preschool programs, 58% of programs in the US cities meet the quality benchmarks for class size (Doggett & Wat, 2019). The basic yardstick is one instructor and one assistant for every twenty learners. Although the progress might appear slow, the success rate of the program cannot be underrated. 

Conclusion and the Future of the Universal Pre-Kindergarten Policy 

With the significant success rate of the universal preschool policy, it is plausible to conclude that its future is promising. Researchers have found relationships between pre-kindergarten programs and enhanced performance in elementary education. Nevertheless, state governments have an opportunity to strengthen their universal preschool programs so that the policy can achieve the intended universal goal. This can be achieved by revising the universal approach to include some aspects of the targeted strategy. For instance, states can ensure that programs have fully qualified teachers and assistants besides having a reasonable class size and teacher-student ratio. Also, states can establish more high-quality programs that will accelerate access to vital pre-kindergarten learning. These strategies will, however, require state governments to develop new local financing alternatives to support the improvement and expansion of the pre-kindergarten programs. 

References 

Best, J., & Cohen, C. (2013). Early Care and Education: Policy Considerations for Ensuring High-Quality Pre-K Programs.  Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) . 

Cascio, E. U. (2017).  Does universal preschool hit the target? Program access and preschool impacts  (No. w23215). National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Cross, C. C. (2008). A historical perspective of the development of prekindergarten and the evolution of quality elements. 

Doggett, L., & Wat, A. (2019).  Pre-K American Cities: Quality and Access Grow, but Cities are Missing Opportunities to Create Lasting Benefits for their Youngest Learners  [Ebook] (1st ed.). New Brunswick: The National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved from nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CH_Pre-kindergartenindergarten_H.1.23.19pdf.pdf 

Friedman-Krauss, A. H., Barnett, W. S., Garver, K. A., Hodges, K. S., Weisenfeld, G. G., & DiCrecchio, N. (2019). The State of Preschool 2018: State Preschool Yearbook.  National Institute for Early Education Research . 

Meloy, B., Gardner, M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Untangling the evidence on preschool effectiveness: Insights for policymakers.  Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from learningpolicyinstitute. org/sites/default/files/productfiles/Untangling_Evidence_Preschool_Effectiveness_REPORT. pdf . 

Parker, E., Keily, T., Atchison, B., & Mullen, J. (2019). Trends in Pre-K Education Funding in 2017-18. Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado. 

Pre-K Matters. (2019). Retrieved 15 December 2019, from www.urbanchildinstitute.org/resources/policy-briefs/pre-kindergartenindergarten-matters 

US Department of Education. (2016).  Obama Administration Investments in Early Learning Have Led to Thousands More Children Enrolled in High-Quality Preschool . Retrieved from www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-investments-early-learning-have-led-thousands-more-children-enrolled-high-quality-preschool