Early Learning

Obama's expanded preschool plan likely to be costly


kids playing basketball

Children play basketball during recess at a state preschool program in Hughson, California. Photo: Lillian Mongeau/EdSource Today

President Barack Obama has yet to issue any cost estimates for his proposal to expand access to preschool for 4-year-olds, but there is one certainty should Congress approve the program: It will be expensive.

California currently serves about one in five of the state’s low-income 4-year-olds in state-funded preschools at a cost of $3,820 per student, according to the California Department of Education. That covers a half day of preschool for 180 days, the length of a regular school year. Some preschool programs offer full-day services and the state spends additional funds to support those programs. The total spent on state-supported preschools in California in 2011-12 was $368 million, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

If California were to do what President Obama called for again yesterday in a speech in Decatur, IL – “to make high quality preschool available to every child” – the cost of serving the state’s approximately half million 4-year-olds could amount to $2 billion or more.

For now, the Obama administration is declining to say how much money the federal government might contribute, where the money might come from or how states might qualify to receive that money.

White House Domestic Policy Council director Cecilia Muñoz said yesterday in a briefing for reporters that more details would be provided as to how the president intends to pay for the program when he releases his budget sometime in the next few weeks.

“We have thought this through,” Muñoz told reporters. “This is not going to add a nickel to the deficit.”

The program would provide states with federal funds in a “cost-sharing” arrangement, Muñoz said. Those funds would be targeted at children from families with incomes of up to twice the federal poverty level, or $47,100 annually for a family of four. Muñoz said the goal is for states to use this federal money for low-income students to work toward a goal of free public preschool for all.

Greg Hudson, who oversees preschool and child-care programs for the state Department of Education, said California does not currently serve all of the children who would qualify for federal support under Obama’s proposal. He said he had no estimate of what it would cost to serve those additional children.

What is known, Hudson said, is that there are waiting lists for public preschool slots in every county in California. What’s more, cuts resulting from the state’s budget crisis have forced preschool programs to reduce enrollments. State-supported preschools lost $61 million in state funding between 2009 and 2012.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama cited Oklahoma as a model state for its free public preschool program open to children of all income levels. Oklahoma enrolled 74 percent of its 4-year-olds in preschool in 2011, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research. That same year, only 19 percent of California’s 4-year-old population – nearly 100,000 children – were enrolled in state-funded programs.

To reach Oklahoma’s level could cost well over $1 billion in state and federal dollars in California, an estimate based on the the number of 4-year-olds in the state and the current preschool per-pupil spending. A 2006 universal preschool initiative on the California ballot in 2006 – soundly rejected by voters – was intended to eventually raise $2.6 billion annually to cover the costs of the program.

 A pie chart shows the types of early childhood care 3- and 4-year-olds in California were receiving in 2007, the latest year for which this data is available. SOURCES: RAND California Preschool Study household survey and provider survey data.


A pie chart shows the types of early childhood care 3- and 4-year-olds in California were receiving in 2007, the latest year for which this data is available.
SOURCES: RAND California Preschool Study household survey and provider survey data.

Nearly one third of California children currently attend private preschools, and their parents pay tuition costs without assistance from the government. It’s impossible to predict how many of those families would sign up for expanded public programs should they become available.

No matter how the final numbers pencil out, preschool advocates say there would be no better investment.

“It’s money well spent,” said Kris Perry, executive director of the First Five Years Fund, a national advocacy organization.

Perry, a former director of the First 5 California commission, said she believed there was enough bipartisan support for early learning for the proposal to stand a chance of making it through a divided Congress focused on the federal deficit.

“Interestingly, there were nine governors who mentioned early learning in their State of the State speeches this month and half of them were Republicans,” Perry said. “Both parties see real benefits, tangible benefits in their states.”

It was no accident that both of the states – Oklahoma and Georgia – President Obama cited in his State of the Union address on Tuesday have Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures.

However, Gov. Jerry Brown has been mostly silent on the issue. He did not mention early learning in his State of the State address last month, much to the disappointment of preschool advocates. His proposed 2013-14 budget does not include additional funding for child care or preschool programs.

Though the early learning community in California is still holding its breath for more details on the president’s proposal – and the likely lengthy legislative battles to follow – many are just thrilled it’s being discussed at a national level.

Referring to the unexpected embrace of early education by the president, the California Department of Education’s Hudson said, “I’m optimistic and overjoyed.”

Filed under: Early Learning, Federal Education Policy, State Education Policy

Tags: ,

Comments

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers. The level of thoughtfulness of our community of readers is rare among online news sites. To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective. Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to. EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and non-germaine comments. EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

7 Responses to “Obama's expanded preschool plan likely to be costly”

  1. el said

    on February 15, 2013 at 10:09 am

    The cuts to the state preschool program have been brutal and ill-considered. I think the worst was the requirement that the preschools charge families for attendance – not give the schools the option, but *require* it, even for very very poor families. In these communities where we already struggle to create a positive partnership between parents and the school, forcing the school to collect tiny amounts of money so their kids to attend has been um, unhelpful, not to mention that the time spent tracking it and billing it made it a wash financially.

  2. NoFreeLunch said

    on February 19, 2013 at 11:59 am

    Preschool for all will not “add a nickel to the deficit” much like Obamacare is not adding “a single dime to the deficit.”

  3. Gary Ravani said

    on February 19, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    “Providing access to Head Start has a positive impact on children’s preschool experiences. There are statistically significant differences between the Head Start group and the control group on every measure of children’s preschool experiences measured in this study.”

    The above quote actually comes from the report linked re Head Start success.

    The study uses multiple measures to evaluate the “positive impact(s).” Results begin to “fade” as students enter school and are measured only by standardized test scores. It is also true that when students enter many school systems the curriculum they encounter is driven by the test based, accountability focused, instructional programs that are not developmentally appropriate, and yet are mandated by states and the USDE. The NCLB/RTTT oriented programs may actually undermine gains made in a more nurturing Head Start environment. So, a great deal of “real learning” occurs during the Head Start years only schools aren’t measuring that using the crude and narrow standardized tests and can’t supplement gains made during early childhood education because if they did, and test scores suffered, Arne Duncan would demand their school be converted to a charter, otherwise shuttered, or “turned around.”

    There are many studies, try the Perry Preschool ones for example, that demonstrate long term benefits to students who attend adequately supported, quality preschool programs. The benefits include improved high school graduation rates, lower incarceration rates, better health outcomes, increased college graduation rates, and improved “life-time earnings.”

    Of course, the key here, is the “adequately supported.” Yes, there is an expense. But what is the moral and fiscal expense to the nation if it is not done?

    (I always think it’s interesting when someone provides a link or reference to a “study” they obviously haven’t read.)

  4. Ruben said

    on February 19, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    Yes do please go see the mess that Kris Perry helped to perpetuate in California via the First 5 programs:

    http://www.flopped5.org
    the First 5 Commission watchdog site

    • Gary Ravani replied

      on February 20, 2013 at 12:12 pm

      Let’s trade links, Ruben. The Perry Preschool study “lifetime effects” can be found here: http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=219

      Your link leads to a site that claims it relates. somehow, to satire. I just found it pretty crabby and without much substance.

  5. Ruben said

    on February 22, 2013 at 2:51 am

    Gary,

    Your attempt to dismiss 15+ years of documented facts on the misuse of over $7.5 Billion dollars of taxpayer money is somewhat laughable

    For instance, Flopped 5 just unearthed a public document wherein First 5 admits to illegally transferring over $300 million in First 5 dollars.

    Good luck trying to put lipstick on the pig.

Template last modified: