Preschool is an vitally important yet widely downplayed level of education. In preschool, children “build a strong foundation in social, pre-academic, and general life skills that will give them a leg up in school and beyond” (15 Reasons Why). Surprisingly, for a sizable number of the population, preschool (and its valuable lessons) costs money, and is thus closed off to a sizable portion of American families. To solve this problem, President Joseph R. Biden recently proposed a 200-billion-dollar plan that would make preschool completely free for all 3- and 4-year olds. However, the original budget plan failed in Congress, mainly due to three main beliefs: that the government should not be involved in education, that all other childcare centers would lose money, and — most importantly — that the money would be wasted. Nevertheless, the importance of universal pre-k cannot be ignored, so the United States needs to ensure that the children of the present and future generations are able to participate in a reliable preschool program without cost.
The advantages of universal pre-k are many, but better-quality education stands foremost among them. A recent study by the Learning Policy Institute found that adolescents “who attend preschool programs are more prepared in school and are less likely … to be held back in elementary school than children who did not attend preschool … [there are also] positive effects on children’s early literacy and mathematics skills” (McKenna). Clearly, the results of early formative education had an impact on later schooling. A New York Times article reflected upon a study of preschools in Boston, and found, after contrasting those who made the preschools and those who didn’t, that “the [accepted students] were less likely to be suspended in high school and … more likely to take the S.A.T., to enroll in college and … graduate from college” (Leonhardt, “The Power of Pre-K”). While average test scores tended to remain constant, the long-term effects of preschool were certainly beneficial in later education. In the short-term, meanwhile, preschool prepares children for elementary school. For example, preschool exposes many children to “matching, sorting, or counting games … that help students develop an understanding of numbers and categories,” and “a variety of [other] activities that help children build pre-literacy skills” (15 Reasons Why). By providing simple yet formative education, preschool gives children the best introduction available to foundational aspects of life.
Additionally, a large number of American families can simply not afford to place their children in pre-k, due to differences in income. While “70 percent of four-year-olds in the United States … enroll in formal pre-kindergarten programs, … those who do not, and those left out and left behind are disproportionately children of color and those from low-income families” (Quality preschool). By making the pre-k program completely free to everyone, the 30 percent of four-year-olds who do not attend preschool can be reduced further, and remove the main barrier to preschool education. In this way, more families will have established economic security and a better chance at employment. In relation to prices, a study found that in 2017, “infant childcare [sic] at centers or licensed homes cost an average of $9,000 to $12,000 per year across the country, more than public college tuition in most states,” in tandem with the established Federal Poverty Level of $12,000 for a family of three (Morrissey). Public programs such as Head Start and government-provided child care subsidies were created to bridge this gap, but as of 2017, only 35% of children aged 3 to 5 attended Head Start, and of 2015, only 15% of eligible children received subsidies (Morrissey). The Center of American Progress states that “child care is considered affordable if it costs families no more than 7 percent of their income … Families paying for child care spend, on average, a greater share of their income than [this] benchmark [see Figure 1, Appendix]” (Malik). Unsurprisingly, this discrepancy between projected and actual costs greatly restricts low-income families from sending their children to preschools — child care just constitutes too much money in their budget. By expanding universal pre-k to become free or have very little cost, low-income families will have easier access and less hurdles for their children’s path to high-quality preschool.
While further reducing or entirely eliminating child care costs may seem like a blow to the American economy, the expansion plan would in fact counteract any blows and allow for economic growth in the infrastructure. “The Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and Alaska Chamber of Commerce, for example, noted the lack of affordable child care as one of the biggest barriers to economic recovery from the pandemic” (Gibbs). By lessening or even removing the amount of money parents need to pay for child care, parents receive more spending power to utilize on the local businesses in the area, thereby boosting the economy. Additionally, an enhanced-quality preschool system would decrease the amount of time needed for parents to take time off work, as before the pandemic and its ramifications “nearly 75 percent of mothers and half of fathers had left their jobs, or taken less-demanding ones, to provide [child] care,” and those who did not caused scheduling difficulties and “negatively affected workers’ ability to fulfill job-related commitments” (Gibbs). In a statement from 2021, the White House recognized that “our nation is strongest when everyone has the opportunity to join the workforce and contribute to the economy” (Fact Sheet). A large part of the available workforce already finds themselves unavailable due to child commitments, and thus cannot participate in the flow of the economy. Making more affordable universal pre-k a reality would rectify this situation and greatly benefit and invigorate the economy.
However, the original budget plan failed in Congress, as sections of the plan, including that of universal pre-k expansion, clashed with the ideals of the Republican Party. Traditionally, Republicans believe that the national government should play a limited role in education, as education “is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States” (The Federal Role). Therefore, one of the main opposition points was that the government should stay out of the education system, as the Constitution does not list education as one of their roles. They are understandably concerned that government-supported education “fosters unquestioning obedience, acceptance of authority, herd mentality, and dependency” (Why Shouldn’t). But the discrepancy between different preschool programs exists because of the different management styles of education among the states. If universal pre-k was overseen by the government, there would be a narrower gap between each of the pre-k centers in the nation. Conservatives maintain, though, that the quality of the preschool depends on location, not state law, and urge citizens to “vote with their feet” (McDonald) — in effect, move to other states — if they disagree with a state’s policy. The same article also warns that “if the government imposes universal preschool across the nation, there will be less experimentation, less accountability, fewer options, and no escape” (McDonald). It appears that they misunderstand the budget plan’s intention, as the government will only impose making preschool universally available, not the curriculum itself. While the Republican Party’s beliefs and subsequent opposition are logical, they simply do not apply in this case.
Others are concerned about what would happen to the publicly- or privately-owned child care centers, such as daycare. Biden’s plan will require a college degree for all child care educators, which would be difficult based on the number of preschools needed for all the 3- and 4-year-olds in the United States. A FOX News article describes that such regulations would be “financially devastating for an industry so burdened by regulations that it struggles for profitability” and continues that, “unable to compete, private providers will be forced out of the marketplace, leaving parents with fewer options” (Nance). However, the budget plan does actually account for ordinary child care centers as well: after parents locate a suitable child care center, “the state would notify families of the amount they are going to pay and reimburse child-care centers on the back end” (Leonhardt, “Biden Child Care Plan”). Although private child care centers (mainly “daycare” centers) are important in taking care of children unable to participate in the ordinary preschool programs, the latter have a far greater impact on adolescents’ development. Consequently, “the most-qualified teachers may be tempted to leave childcare centers in favor of universal pre-k programs” (Brooks), which would be detrimental to private childcare centers, but would also increase both the quality and quantity of the workforce of the preschool programs, the main goal of the legislation. Child care centers are, without a doubt, significantly important in early learning, and while the Universal Pre-K section of the budget plan may cause reduction in that industry, children’s developmental preschool education would, in that case, be improved even more.
Finally, the costs of legislation have also caused great debate. Acknowledging the impossibility of making all child care programs free, the plan proposes a tax credit of $8,000 (per child) for families that make less than $125,000 a year, which would cover up to 50% of child care costs (Leonhardt, “Biden Child Care Plan”). If parents are uninterested in a tax credit, they can receive a subsidy in which the government would pay a major amount of the costs for any child care center the parents choose to enroll their child in. While the Biden plan sets aside $200 billion for the implementation of the expansion, a University of Pennsylvania study estimated that “nationwide universal preschool education for three- and four-year-olds will cost $351 billion over the next 10 years, including $41 billion in new facility construction costs over the first two years. This policy raises government debt by 2.41 percent in 2053 relative to baseline” (Berkovich et al). Anticipating this, the White House planned to finance the continuation of the programs for the first three years, and then call on state governments to assume a gradually-increasing share of the cost over time, starting at a federal-state split of 90% – 10%. Conservative media outlets blasted this idea, calling it “another unfunded mandate in disguise as we claw our way back from the economic perils of the pandemic” (Nance). This is inaccurate, however, as a report from the Treasury Department in 2022 stated that “the U. S. economic recovery from the Covid-19 [sic] pandemic has been remarkably fast, with the unemployment rate now near 50-year lows and real gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 5.7 percent in 2021 [see Figure 2, Appendix] … the U. S. recovery may be substantially faster than commonly appreciated” (Harris & Mehrotra). It makes sense, because a government leader would not sensibly unveil a plan to spend more money if their nation was clawing its way back from an economic disaster. While there are other petty disagreements on the budget costs, such as alignment with state budget plans, the Universal Pre-K expansion has no real obstructions, as the United States does not, as many erroneously believe, need to pour its monetary reserves into resuscitating an economy still floating belly-up from the pandemic.
An additional concern was the cost of funding, because in order to pay for the tax credits and subsidies, the White House proposed “sweeping reforms to the corporate tax code, including an increase in the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%” (Barrabi). In layman’s terms, it’s the Robin Hood mentality of “steal from the rich, give to the poor,” but while this may seem morally right, it also clashes with the Republican ideology, as conservatives believe that the rich should not be taxed, as they are a major part of the banking and general economic systems; a New York Times article found that Republican taxation policies were “self-limiting,” and were more “well suited to a modest technocratic agenda but not to, say, […] sweeping industrial-policy spending” (Douthat). A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stressed three main points: that “raising taxes on corporations would … [help] to generate the revenue needed to help finance investments that would promote an equitable recovery”; that tax cuts “provided few benefits to the economy in general”; and that corporate tax hikes “will not undermine the economic recovery” (Marr et al.) By relieving corporations of idle surplus funds, the infrastructure will be improved after putting this money back into the circular-flow economic system. The government needs the income from corporate taxes to finance all the programs that rely on federal revenue, which have run on much lower funds since the 2017 tax cut (which reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%), which also did not cause GDP to grow faster, as expected (see Figure 3, Appendix). Furthermore, household-generated revenue composes an integral part of the economy, and, as Marr and his group found, cutting taxes for the middle class, instead of the upper class and large corporations, would better trigger economic activity for citizens of that class (see Figure 4, Appendix) — one can only imagine the stimulation caused by hiking the corporate tax rate. Therefore, the percentage increase aptly justifies the president’s plan to finance the first fifteen years of the universal pre-k expansion by increasing the corporate tax rate by half as much as it was lowered in 2017.
A foundational aspect of the education system, however underrated and unrecognized, is preschool. President Biden’s plan to expand it and similar programs free or at least more affordable to 3- and 4-year-olds would greatly increase the quality of early education for all children regardless of their parents’ income status, and also free up hours for stay-at-home parents to further contribute to the economy through their various professions. In opposition, some believe that government-controlled and -imposed education would cause brainwashing of a sort, which would go against the ideals of the United States as a whole; however, the expansion would not have the government controlling education; rather, the government would only support and fund the education programs. Additionally, privately-owned daycare centers would not be ignored, but instead would be augmented to become more like preschools, and still be made accessible to families with financial assistance needs. However, the most opposition came on the subject of funding. The plan called for a tax credit federally funded by $200 billion for the first three years, after which the funds would shift, gradually, to the states, which was deemed by several conservative outlets as inadvisable based on the false claim that the American economy was still recovering from the pandemic and could not handle more dollars taken away to pay for new programs. Moreover, the White House called for a corporate tax hike, which was protested vigorously by conservatives due to their belief that it would curtail business investments and also lower economic activity; however, studies found that cutting taxes for the middle class (and raising taxes for the upper class) would raise economic activity instead. In any case, while there may be long-term flaws within the expansion plan, its implementation would serve to improve both the education of our children and the American infrastructure for the years to come.
Works Cited:
“15 Reasons Why Preschool Is One Of The Most Important Decisions You Can Make.” Early Learning Center, NCA Community, Preschool, Northshore Christian Academy, 05 June 2020. https://nca.school/15-reasons-why-preschool-is-one-of-the-most-important- decisions-you-can-make/
Barrabi, Thomas. “Biden to unveil $200B universal preschool plan for children aged three to four.” FOX News, 27 April 2021. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-unveil-200b- universal-preschool-plan-children-aged-3-to-4
Berkovich, Efraim. “Total Cost of Universal Pre-K, Including New Facilities.” Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 02 June 2022. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/ issues/2022/6/2/total-cost-of-universal-pre-k
Brooks, Ashley. “Exploring the Potential Pros and Cons of Universal Pre-K.” Education Blog, Rasmussen University, 07 September 2022. https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/ education/blog/universal-pre-k-what-is-it-why-affect-me/
Douthat, Ross. “Opinion: Can Republicans Tax the Rich?” New York Times, 21 September 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/21/opinion/republicans-national-conservatives- policy.html
“Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan.” Briefing Room, the White House, 28 April 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan/
Gibbs, Hailey. “4 Reasons the U.S. Economy Needs Comprehensive Child Care.” Center for American Progress, 04 May 2022. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/4-reasons- the-u-s-economy-needs-comprehensive-child-care/
Harris, Ben, and Neil Mehrotra. “Measuring the Strength of the Recovery.” U. S. Department of the Treasury, 26 May 2022. https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/measuring- the-strength-of-the-recovery
Leonhardt, David. “The Power of Pre-K.” Morning Briefing, New York Times, 10 May 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/briefing/universal-pre-k-biden-agenda.html
Leonhardt, Megan. “Biden child care plan: lower costs, paid time off, universal pre-K.” Make It, CNBC, 21 July 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/21/biden-child-care-plan-lower- costs-paid-time-off-universal-pre-k.html
Malik, Rasheed. “Working Families Are Spending Big Money on Child Care.” Center for American Progress, 20 June 2019. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/working- families-spending-big-money-child-care/
Marr, Chuck et al. “Corporate Rate Increase Would Make Taxes Fairer, Help Fund Equitable Recovery.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 25 May 2021. https://www.cbpp.org/ research/federal-tax/corporate-rate-increase-would-make-taxes-fairer-help-fund-equitable-recovery
McDonald, Kerry. “4 Reasons to Oppose Biden’s Universal Preschool Plan.” Fee, 06 May 2021. https://fee.org/articles/4-reasons-to-oppose-biden-s-universal-preschool- plan
McKenna, Barbara. “What Does the Research Really Say About Preschool Effectiveness?” Learning Policy Institute, 31 January 2019. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/press- release/what-does-research-really-say-about-preschool-effectiveness
Morrissey, Taryn. “Addressing the need for affordable, high-quality early childhood care and education for all in the United States.” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 18 February 2020. https://equitablegrowth.org/addressing-the-need-for-affordable-high- quality-early-childhood-care-and-education-for-all-in-the-united-states/
Nance, Penny Y. “Opinion: Hey, Joe Biden and Democrats, leave our kids and child care alone.” FOX News, 12 November 2021. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-democrats- leave-child-care-along-penny-nance
“Quality preschool for low-income children.” All-In Cities, PolicyLink, n.d. https://allincities.org /toolkit/quality-preschool
“The Federal Role in Education.” U. S. Department of Education, n.d.. https://www2.ed.gov/ about/overview/fed/role.html
“Why Shouldn’t the Government be Involved in Education.” School & State, n.d.. https:// schoolandstate.com/?page_id=58#.ZGJX1z2ZNEY
Appendix:
Figure 1: (Malik)
Figure 2: (GDP = Gross Domestic Product; GDI = Gross Domestic Income; GDO = Gross Domestic Output [an average of GDP and GDI]) (Harris & Mehrotra)
Figure 3: (Marr et al.)
Figure 4: (Marr et al.)
Be First to Comment