Obama's Universal Pre-K Plan: A Solid Recipe for Reducing Income Inequality

NOTE: The following post is a policy argument essay I wrote for my GW class, Politics of Inequality in the United States, taught by Professor Robert Stoker. 

(PHOTO courtesy The New York Times: President and Mrs. Obama, seen here in early February 2009, visit a school in Washington, D.C.)

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama advocated for the adoption of universal pre-kindergarten education in the United States. [1] The city of Chicago and states such as Georgia and Oklahoma have all experimented with successful pre-K programs in the last several years. The results have provided a clear framework for how an effectively implemented preschool education program can enhance learning and dramatically increase earnings of low-income individuals. If federal policymakers were to enact the President’s proposal for national universal pre-kindergarten education, then there would be a reduction in income inequality in the United States. Obama’s proposal would provide states with Department of Education grants, linked to the states’ proportion of four-year olds from poor and middle class families, but would also expand Head Start eligibility to reach more middle-income children. [2]

Thorough studies conducted by think tanks, the evidence reflected in extensive economic research, and the examples of successful pre-K programs show such a national universal pre-K plan would lead to enormous economic and social benefits, including the alleviation of poverty. However, the successful programs of Chicago, Georgia, and Oklahoma featured several similar components that increased their success in lowering income inequality. These components are included in President Obama’s proposal thus making it likely that his plan would be successful in tackling income inequality. [3]

            “In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children,” President Obama told a joint session of Congress in February 2013, “studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, form more stable families of their own…[so] we know this works.” [4] Obama is correct in this assessment and the evidence supports his assertion. In fact, the University of Chicago, the Georgetown University Center for Research on Children in the United States, the Century Foundation, the Center for American Progress, and other think tanks and policy-oriented institutions have conducted in-depth research that reaffirms this hypothesis. However, in order for a pre-K program to be successful in reducing income inequality, a variety of research indicates it must include several components that already distinguish Obama’s proposal.

The program must be robustly funded with a dedicated financing structure, include a diverse learning environment, small class sizes, long class days, high teaching standards, high enrollment, and a comprehensive education that is subsequently sustained. [5] Indeed, according to studies analyzed by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, having teachers that hold bachelor’s degrees and “low staff-to-student ratios…improve children’s social outcomes,” which are linked to income gains later in life. [6] These criteria are important in terms of alleviating income inequality. Children’s eventual income gains are tied to their initial learning outcomes, which are often dependent upon factors like class size, teacher quality, and diversity. Small class sizes allow for more personalized teaching and effective learning while qualified teachers are proven to be adept at training children and diverse classes improve learning and understanding. [7] However, “limited funding could reduce actual enrollment” thus showing how crucial it is to have a reliable, large revenue source for the sake of ensuring a program has the financial backing needed to thrive. [8]

If these criteria exist, as they do in President Obama’s proposal, universal pre-K would be a wise investment for federal policymakers and would reduce income inequality.[9] In states and communities where it has been implemented with the aforementioned components, the National Institute for Early Education Research found that pre-K programs have closed long-term income gaps.[10] Pre-K programs have also produced less long-term spending on welfare programs and prisons as a consequence of children, due to their participation in these programs, becoming less likely to resort to crime or have to rely on government support.[11] Further, as Nancy Folbre argued in a 2013 piece in The New York Times, universal pre-K alleviates inequalities for families because, since it would be offered through public education, it would help mitigate the “cost of child-rearing.”[12]

            These assertions are shared on the part of University of Chicago Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, who has done research indicating for every dollar invested in early childhood intervention, $7 is saved in social costs down the road. [13] The effect in Heckman’s city of Chicago as a result of pre-K initiatives of the public schools in Chicago has been even more successful in this regard. A February 2013 report from the Center for American Progress, summarizing research done by the National Institutes of Health, asserted that “because Chicago’s program increases children’s earnings later in life…it yields about $11 for every dollar spent on it.” [14] The success of Chicago’s experimentation, which Mayor Rahm Emanuel is seeking to expand on a broader level, is largely a consequence of the city incorporating key tools that bolster the success of pre-K programs. For instance, the Chicago public schools incorporate a small teacher-to-student ratio, socioeconomic diversity in their classes, and high standards for their teachers, all components that allow for the current programs offered to be successful in reducing income inequality. [15]

            Such gains have not only been seen in Chicago. In Georgia, rural low-income children in the state universal pre-K program have seen significant economic advantages over those children who did not attend the program. [16] Further, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study showed the program resulted in marked increases in children’s learning, reading, and proficiency skills, key to childhood development that spurs the growth in abilities that are crucial for higher-paying jobs in the future. [17] There were several aspects to the program that made it particularly successful in reducing income inequality. The Center for American Progress noted that the state’s lengthy class days, small class sizes, socioeconomic diversity, and high standards for teachers all boosted its success in this regard. [18]

Ultimately, the impact the program is projected to have on long-term income inequality is significant. According to the Urban Child Institute, a Southern Education Foundation analysis found that, if Georgia’s program enrolls 82 percent of four-year-olds, “total savings to citizens…would produce a return of $5.12 for every $1 invested” and those savings would include “savings related to welfare,” as children who attended the pre-K program are projected to be far less likely to be on the welfare rolls, as adults, than are those who did not attend the pre-K program. [19] In fact, research conducted on behalf of the Institute Economic Policy Research at Stanford University even found that “the economic benefits for disadvantaged children [in Georgia] were clear.” [20]

            A similar success story is seen in the case of Oklahoma, a state widely cited by pro-universal pre-K politicians as a model for the nation. Georgetown University research shows that the program has been extremely effective on many levels, including in income gains and improving children’s cognitive skills. [21] Importantly, an Economics of Education Review study, touted by the Urban Child Institute, found low-income groups stand to benefit massively in “earnings benefits” thanks to Oklahoma’s investment in early childhood education.[22] One significant aspect of Oklahoma’s program that made it especially successful was that it had a “specially designated and protected revenue stream,” further confirming that programs that feature a consistent, reliable financing mechanism to fund the program are particularly prosperous. [23]  As demonstrated in The American Prospect, the program also has unusually high enrollment, very high standards for teachers, and a composition that “reflected the state’s demographics.” The success of such policies, in Oklahoma, reaffirms that they are effective in bolstering a pre-K program that reduces income inequality. [24]

            Nevertheless, there are examples of pre-K programs which were not successful and do not have a record of considerably reducing income inequality. However, these programs are almost exclusively initiatives that did not incorporate a dedicated financing stream and they were significantly underfunded. The programs also lacked the kind of diversity, small class size, and high teacher standards that are associated with the successful poverty-alleviating programs. For instance, as The Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel pointed out in The Washington Post, New York’s pre-K program has not been successful in producing sizable gains in income for low-income children largely because it did not include a dedicated and reliable financing mechanism. [25] In Georgia, financing of the pre-K program declined during the governorship of Nathan Deal and the program’s success considerably diminished. [26] In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Corbett’s education cuts resulted in larger class sizes and the toxic combination of these cuts with increased staff-to-student ratios meant projections of a decline in long-term reduction of income inequality. [27]

 In terms of criticism of pre-K programs, Republican politicians who are skeptical of universal pre-K, as well as conservative think tanks, will often point to the mixed results of Head Start, a decades-old federal program aimed at assisting the poor, to claim that universal pre-K would fail. U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minnesota, specifically cited “what doesn’t work…in Head Start,” when asked about President Obama’s universal pre-K proposal, and The Cato Institute’s David Armor, a George Mason University public policy professor, wrote in The Washington Post that Head Start has “found few significant long-term benefits for disadvantaged children.” [28] As The Century Foundation extensively described though, it is problematic to point to Head Start as an example in describing why universal pre-K is not a worthwhile investment, as Armor argued. [29]

 Exclusively targeted towards poor children, Head Start prices out middle-class families. However, Obama’s proposal would expand the program – a move that early childhood education policy experts predict will help reduce poverty. [30] GOP critics of universal pre-K are misguided in pointing to Head Start to attack Obama’s pre-K proposal though for other reasons as well. Unlike Obama’s proposal, the current program fails to be socioeconomically diverse, does not incorporate strong teaching standards, and is “underfunded.” [31] An analysis done by the ONE Campaign found that “Head Start has been plagued by inadequate teacher training…and a need for effective standards for operation.” [32] In fact, in a 1993 speech, Zigler blamed the deficiencies of Head Start on precisely the lack of key mechanisms that often make pre-K programs work. “Inadequate funding, quality problems, and lack of socioeconomic integration,” Zigler wrote, “have plagued Head Start since its inception…[and] it needs to be improved.” The steps for improvements – higher diversity, more funding, and stronger teacher standards – are not only ones that distinguish successful pre-K programs but they are also measures Zigler too concluded would reduce child poverty. [33] The problems associated with Head Start indicate that such aforementioned ingredients, ones that the President incorporates in his plan, are crucial to having a successful pre-K program that alleviates poverty. If these components are lacking, the program will not realize its full potential and certainly will not be as effective in reducing income inequality.

            On the other hand, extensive research – combined with the case studies aforementioned – show universal pre-K to be a solid national investment. In fact, it would reduce income inequality if it incorporated the proper ingredients. Early childhood education experts Halley Potter, Katie Hamm, and Steven Barnett, in research that was summarized by U.S. News and World Report recently, all concluded in their studies that universal pre-K is an investment with positive long-term gains with regards to income inequality. For instance, Hamm wrote that, “research show[s] that high-quality preschool programs…lead to…better employment and wages” but she, as well as Potter and Barnett, concluded that a national universal pre-K program would be wildly successful in reducing such inequality only if the program was socioeconomically diverse and, as Barnett described it, “adhere[d] to a few standards that typify the most effective programs,” including having high-quality teachers. [34] As such, according to the Center for Public Education, “core requirements for [pre-K] program success include: highly trained teachers…and a policy of low child-staff ratios and class sizes,” further indicating that it is these characteristics that make a program particularly worthwhile if one of the goals is to reduce income inequality. [35] Ultimately, though, strong financing is also key to success because, as the National Institute for Early Education Research found, underfunding risks seriously undermining the ability of a pre-K program to succeed.[36]

            Therefore, President Obama’s proposal for universal pre-K could be extremely successful in reducing income inequality nationwide. In fact, Obama’s proposal includes high teacher standards, open access to many by guaranteeing pre-K to poor and lower middle-class kids but expanding Head Start to include more middle-class Americans thus facilitating socioeconomic diversity, a dedicated financing mechanism of higher taxes on wealthy families, and the incorporation of long class days and small class sizes. [37] Consequently, since the President’s proposal features those components that both aforementioned research and successful pre-K programs show to be effective in slashing poverty, it will likely be successful in reducing income inequality. The Center for American Progress, in describing a plan identical to Obama’s proposal, published an analysis that found the proposed universal pre-K program – which costs $98 billion over a decade – would, in fact, reduce income inequality and deliver large returns for the money initially spent on it.[38] The gains seen for low-income and middle-income Americans in the establishment of a national universal pre-K program show us that it is a wise investment for ourselves, for our economy, and for our future.

---

[1] “Fact Sheet: President Obama’s Plan for Early Childhood Education for All Americans,” The White House, accessed October 21, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/13/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-plan-early-education-all-americans.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] “Fact Sheet: President Obama’s Plan for Early Childhood Education for All Americans.”

[5] Urban Childhood Institute, “Pre-K Matters,” urbanchildinstitute.org.

[6] “Universal pre-K,” What Works for Health: Policies and Programs to Improve Women’s Health, accessed October 24, 2014, http://whatworksforhealth.wisc.edu/program.php?t1=20&t2=2&t3=56&id=167.

[7] Jacob, Brian & Ludwig, Jens, “Improving educational outcomes for poor children,” http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262j.pdf (National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2008).

[8] “Universal pre-K: What Works for Health: Policies and Programs to Improve Women’s Health.”

[9] “Fact Sheet: President Obama’s Plan for Early Childhood Education for All Americans.”

[10] W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D, “Getting the Facts Right on Pre-K and the President’s Pre-K Proposal: Policy Report,” http://www.nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/Getting%20the%20Facts%20Right%20on%20Pre-K.pdf. (National Institute for Early Education Research, February 25, 2013).

[11] “Early Childhood Education for All: A Wise Investment,” accessed October 24, 2014, http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf.

[12] Nancy Folbre, “The Push for Universal Pre-K,” New York Times, September 30, 2013, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/the-push-for-universal-pre-k/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1.

[13] James J. Heckman, Ph.D, “The Case for Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children,” http://heckmanequation.org/content/resource/case-investing-disadvantaged-young-children. (The Heckman Equation, accessed October 24, 2014).

[14] Bryce Covert, “Georgia’s Universal Preschool Program Significantly Improves Children’s Skills,” ThinkProgress, March 10, 2014, http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/03/10/3385561/georgias-universal-preschool-scores/.

[15] Center for Public Education, “The Research on Pre-K,” 2007-2008, http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Pre-kindergarten/Pre-Kindergarten, http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Pre-kindergarten/Pre-Kindergarten/Pre-kindergarten-What-the-research-shows.html.

[16] Covert, ThinkProgress.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Urban Child Institute, “Pre-K Matters,” December 2011, http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/resources/policy-briefs/pre-k-matters.

[20] Maria Fitzpatrick, “Starting School at Four,” http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/Papers/pdf/08-05.pdf. Stanford University, December 2008.

[21] Georgetown University Center for Research on Children in the U.S., “Effects of Pre-K,” 2008.

[22]Urban Child Institute, “Pre-K Matters,”

[23] Katrina vanden Heuvel, “De Blasio’s Persuasive Case for Universal Pre-K,” Washington Post, October 27, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-bill-de-blasios-persuasive-case-for-universal-pre-k/2014/01/13/82122f06-7c89-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html.

[24] Sharon Lerner, “Pre-K on the Range,” The American Prospect, December 4, 2014. http://prospect.org/article/pre-k-range.

[25] vanden Heuvel, Washington Post.

[26] Nancy Badertscher, “Georgia pre-k teachers not expected to rush back as cuts are partially restored,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 8, 2012, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/georgia-pre-k-teachers-not-expected-to-rush-back-a/nQR2j/.

[27]Michael J. Crossey, “Pa. takes a step backward with Corbett’s education cuts,” PennLive, August 26, 2011, http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/08/pa_takes_a_step_backward_with.html.

[28] Frumin, Aliyah, “Obama pushes universal preschool in GA, GOP expresses doubts,” MSNBC.com, February 14, 2013, http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/obama-pushes-universal-preschool-ga-gop-e.; David Amor, “We have no idea if universal preschool helps kids,” Washington Post, October 21, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/we-have-no-idea-if-universal-preschool-actually-helps-kids/.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Wogan, J.B., “The Obameter: Expand Early Head Start and Head Start,” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/243/expand-early-head-start-and-head-start/ Politifact. September 27, 2012.

[31] Edward Zigler, Sally J. Styfco, The Hidden History of Head Start, Oxford University Press (2010).

[32] ONE Campaign’s Results: 2015 Goal - Domestic Education for All, http://results.techriver.net/website/article.asp?id=1115&printFriendly=1.

[33] Zigler, Edward, “Reshaping Early Childhood Intervention to Be a More Effective Weapon Against Poverty,” http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED365458.pdf. Annual Convention of the APA, August 20, 1993.

[34] U.S. News and World Report, “Should the Government Fund Universal Pre-K?,” http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-government-fund-universal-pre-k.

[35] Center for Public Education.

[36] Eye on Early Education, “NIEER Summarizes Pre-K Research,” March 18, 2013, http://eyeonearlyeducation.com/2013/03/18/nieer-summarizes-pre-k-research.

[37] Dylan Matthews, “Obama’s pre-K plan,” The Washington Post, February 14, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/read-obamas-pre-k-plan/.

[38] Center for American Progress, “A Universal Pre-School Plan,” February 7, 2013, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/07/1555401/universal-pre-k-plan/.