Publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs

There is strong evidence that publicly funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs improve school readiness and increase academic achievement (DeAngelis 2020, Hustedt 2021, Pion 2021, Early 2019, Montrosse-Moorhead 2019, Brookings-Phillips 2017, Gormley 2018, Haslip 2018, Lipsey 2018, Hustedt 2015), especially among children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Brookings-Phillips 2017, Fitzpatrick 2008, Gormley 2005, Dorman 2017, NIEER-Lamy 2005) and English language learners (ELL) (Conger 2019, Lipsey 2018, Brookings-Phillips 2017, Peisner-Feinberg 2013). However, additional evidence is needed to confirm long-term effects (Brookings-Whitehurst 2018, Brookings-Phillips 2017, Hill 2015b).

In general, children who attend preschool demonstrate gains in cognitive and social skills (Camilli 2010, Manning 2010, Burger 2010), as well as modest improvements in social-emotional and self-regulatory development (Brookings-Phillips 2017). State-sponsored pre-K programs, whether universal or not, improve children’s language, math, and reading skills (McKenzie 2021, Hustedt 2021, Pion 2021, Early 2019, Montrosse-Moorhead 2019, Wong 2008). A meta-analysis of publicly funded pre-K programs that have scaled up since 2000 found strong positive effects on math and reading scores in the short-term (DeAngelis 2020). One study of Miami-Dade County’s pre-K program suggests pre-K participation can increase school stability, on-time promotions to the next grade, and the likelihood of students in ELL programs moving to non-ELL status, which is associated with faster English acquisition and improved academic success (Conger 2019).

Long-term benefits. Available evidence suggests participation in Head Start, a publicly funded preschool program for children from low income backgrounds, is associated with large benefits over the long-term, including increased high school completion, college enrollment and completion, economic self-sufficiency, and labor force participation (Bailey 2021). Effects may be more likely to persist for students enrolled in more mature pre-K programs (Hill 2015b) or for students who continue to receive interventions through grade school (Conger 2019, Brookings-Phillips 2017), especially in high quality classrooms and schools (Carr 2021, Carr 2019, Early 2019). In a Georgia-based study, state pre-K participants demonstrated increased academic achievement in 4th grade (Early 2019). The long-term academic effects of Tennessee’s statewide pre-K program are unclear; some research suggests effects fade over time (Pion 2021); however, other studies show positive effects are maintained for students who went on to have high quality teachers in high quality schools after pre-K (Durkin 2022). In an Oklahoma-based study of universal pre-K, positive effects on math achievement, enrollment in honors courses, and grade retention persist through middle school for pre-K participants, although effects on standardized test scores diminish over time (Gormley 2018).

Universal programs. State universal pre-K programs are associated with increases in licensed child care availability and enrollment in formal care among 4-year-olds, and enrollment decreases among 3-year-olds (Bassok 2016). Attending high quality pre-K increases the likelihood a child will be diagnosed with asthma, hearing, or vision problems and receive treatment (Hong 2019a, Masuda 2021).

Some researchers recommend states focus resources on children from families with low incomes and minorities, who will benefit the most from pre-K access (Fitzpatrick 2008). Others contend that universal pre-K should be promoted as it garners more public support than programs for vulnerable populations (Gormley 2005). Offering preschool universally can increase enrollment for children of all income levels. Among families with high incomes, universal programs can reduce child care costs as families enroll their children in public preschool (Brookings-Cascio 2013). Universal pre-K can reach children from lower income backgrounds who do not meet eligibility requirements for targeted programs and otherwise may not enroll in preschool (NBER-Cascio 2017).

Maternal labor force outcomes. Publicly funded pre-K is associated with increased maternal labor force participation, especially for mothers that are married, college-educated, white non-Hispanic, residents of metropolitan areas, and with income below 200% or above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (FRB-Ilin 2021, Brookings-Cascio 2013). For mothers with income below 200% FPL, increased labor force participation may be due to work requirements associated with public assistance programs (FRB-Ilin 2021). Full day pre-K programs are more likely to encourage maternal labor force participation, with the strongest effects for mothers from non-disadvantaged backgrounds (Li 2020a).

Best practices. Preliminary evidence indicates that pre-K programs that focus on instruction and coaching learners as they think through tasks can yield more cognitive growth than those focused on child-directed play and exploration (Chien 2010). Explicit academic instruction, low staff-to-student ratios (Camilli 2010), good classroom management, and emotional support can improve children’s cognitive and social outcomes (Hamre 2013). High quality, successful pre-K programs can support early learning through well implemented, evidence-based curricula, coaching for teachers, initiatives to promote orderly and active classrooms (Brookings-Phillips 2017), and strong instructional and emotional support systems (Anderson 2017a). Challenges for such programs include staff turnover, student enrollment levels, staff time to complete accountability requirements for public funding, and government regulation changes (Dorman 2017).

Benefits and costs. Available evidence suggests costs vary between programs based on several characteristics such as staffing levels, compensation, program hours, facility costs, curricula investments, and professional development (RAND-Karoly 2021). In 2020, state pre-K programs spent an average of $5,499 per student in addition to federal and local funding (NIEER-Friedman-Krauss 2021). One model suggests additional costs for taxpayers would be between $2 and 4 billion annually to increase access to state pre-K programs enough to cover all 4-year-olds currently without access to such programs (Brookings-Whitehurst 2015). Benefit cost analysis suggests that implementing high quality publicly funded pre-K, especially in majority Black neighborhoods, produces a high net benefit for society (Upjohn-Bartik 2018).

There is strong evidence that publicly funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs reduce disparities in school readiness and academic outcomes between children from low income backgrounds and those from higher income backgrounds (Brookings-Phillips 2017, Fitzpatrick 2008, Gormley 2005, Dorman 2017, NIEER-Lamy 2005) and between English language learners and students proficient in English (Conger 2019, Lipsey 2018, Brookings-Phillips 2017, Peisner-Feinberg 2013).

Several universal pre-K programs demonstrate stronger effects for Hispanics, Blacks, and children from families with low incomes than for whites and children from families with high incomes (NBER-Cascio 2017, Gormley 2005). Pre-K programs have positive effects across racial groups; however, some studies show smaller effects for children that are Hispanic, Black, Native American, or from families with low incomes than for white children. Experts suggest that since pre-K program quality varies, adjustments are needed to support kindergarten readiness for children of all backgrounds (Hustedt 2021, Montrosse-Moorhead 2019). Among children from lower income backgrounds, state pre-K enrollment is associated with increased time reading at home and improved test performance; effects may diminish with time but can last through fourth grade in reading and eighth grade in math (Brookings-Cascio 2013). Economically integrated pre-K programs may improve academic achievement more for children from families with low incomes than programs that only serve children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Miller 2017a, NBER-Cascio 2017).

One nationwide analysis suggests the strongest effects on academic achievement are associated with high quality pre-K programs and providing pre-K to majority Black neighborhoods (Upjohn-Bartik 2018). The quality of pre-K classroom experience varies significantly by community characteristics (Bassok 2016a). In states with high levels of residential segregation, Black and Hispanic children from low income backgrounds often experience lower quality publicly funded pre-K environments than white children in more affluent areas (Valentino 2018). An analysis of New York City’s universal pre-K program found large disparities in provider quality, with white children more likely to experience a high quality provider than Black, Hispanic, and Asian children. Results suggest high quality pre-K providers are less likely to be located in predominantly Black neighborhoods, and that structural changes and quality improvements in areas experiencing disinvestment and residential segregation are needed to improve educational opportunities and pre-K programs’ ability to reduce racial achievement gaps (Latham 2020).

Research has shown higher rates of exclusionary disciplinary action (i.e. suspensions and expulsions) taken against Black and Hispanic children than against white children, starting in preschool (Sabol 2022, Wymer 2022). These disparities are not supported by any observed differences in disruptive behavior measurements (Sabol 2022, Wymer 2022). Preschool programs need to raise awareness and provide teacher training and professional development to prevent discriminatory punishment practices due to implicit and explicit racial bias (Sabol 2022, Wymer 2022).

In the U.S., there has never been an integrated national policy for early childhood education and care (ECEC) programs. Programs focused on child care and programs focused on early education have been and continue to be developed separately. In the 1830s, nurseries provided children with basic care and supervision. From the Civil War through World War II, enrollment in such programs increased during times of war and generally decreased after wars ended. Early childhood program availability expanded in the 1960s and 1970s, as maternal workforce participation increased and the number of households headed by single mothers grew (Kamerman 2007). In 1965, Head Start was established at the federal level as a community action program overseen by the Economic Opportunity Office to provide non-segregated preschool education programs to children from families with low incomes. Despite many obstacles and resistance from school boards and community organizations, many Civil Rights leaders and advocates persisted to establish and develop successful Head Start programs. Head Start programs also created employment opportunities and hired educators, administrators, and employees of color, even in the South (NHSA-Head Start history). When Head Start funding expanded in the 1980s and 1990s, preschool enrollment rates increased, though there still were not enough spaces to provide preschool for all eligible children. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 required single mothers to work to receive public assistance and created an even greater need for ECEC programs for infants and children (Kamerman 2007). Historically roles for women in American society have been constrained, at least in part to discourage mothers from middle class backgrounds from participating in the work force, by offering unequal pay and limited job opportunities. However, policies have simultaneously forced single mothers from low income backgrounds to work outside of the home, regardless of their preferences, the age of their infants or children, or the quality of ECEC available to them (Kamerman 2007).

Overall, access to high quality ECEC programs varies substantially (NBER-Cascio 2021, Kamerman 2007). Preschool enrollment rates vary by geography and race or ethnicity. Children living in rural areas have lower participation rates in preschool education programs compared to urban and suburban areas (Morrissey 2022a). Families living in rural areas often have less access to early childhood care and education programs and these programs often have fewer resources than in urban and suburban areas (Morrissey 2022a). Even though publicly funded preschool is designed for children from families with low incomes, enrollment gaps remain based on family income and parent education levels (NBER-Cascio 2021). States still have responsibility for preschool program offerings and some states are trying to increase preschool access. For example, Georgia and Oklahoma were the first two states to adopt universal pre-K programs (NBER-Cascio 2021), and Georgia’s universal pre-K program benefits children from families with low incomes in rural areas the most, possibly because they cannot access alternative pre-K programs (Fitzpatrick 2008). State-funded pre-K has been expanded in many states from 1998 to the present (NBER-Cascio 2021). However, in many areas, the need for high quality preschool opportunities persists (NBER-Cascio 2021, Kamerman 2007).

• Which neighborhoods in your community have access to high quality, publicly funded preschool programs? What options are available for families with low incomes? Whether your community identifies as urban or rural or in-between, can you increase space availability for more children? Reduce costs for families? Improve location convenience or access through transportation options?
• How could you support quality improvements for publicly funded pre-K? Are there partnerships or collaborations that could support teachers, students, and parents involved in the program?
• What can you do to increase enrollment in publicly funded pre-K among students identifying as a racial or ethnic minority? Among students with English language learner status? Among students from low income backgrounds?
• How can local preschool education programs support equitable outcomes for students of all backgrounds? What training can you offer to teachers and providers to reduce implicit and explicit bias and promote fair discipline practices?

As of 2020, 44 states and Washington, D.C. have publicly funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs that serve over 1.37 million 4-year-olds, about one-third of all 4-year-olds in the country. Eight states served nearly 50% or more of 4-year-olds in their states, and five states enrolled more than 70% of their 4-year-olds (NIEER-Friedman-Krauss 2021).

The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) assesses state preschool policies annually using a set of minimum quality standards that focus on process quality (or classroom experiences). Only six states, Alabama, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, and Rhode Island, meet all 10 of NIEER’s benchmarks for preschool quality. Thirteen states meet fewer than half of the benchmarks. Pre-K enrollment slowed and spending was reduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; several states now face high risks of funding shortfalls when enrollment rebounds (NIEER-Friedman-Krauss 2021). As of 2018, only four states, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island, require all preschool teachers to have a bachelor’s degree and teaching certification, while also requiring equal pay for preschool and K-3 teachers (NIEER-Friedman-Krauss 2019).

States with more women in the state legislature and higher rates of unemployment are more likely to establish public pre-K programs. States with more Republicans in the state legislature are less likely to adopt public pre-K. Prior investment in pre-K does not appear to be correlated with adoption of publicly funded pre-K (Cohen-Vogel 2020).

Brookings-Johnson 2018 - Johnson AD, Phillips DA, Schochet O. The evaluation roadmap for optimizing pre-K programs. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2018.

Child Trends-ECDC - The Early Childhood Data Collaborative (ECDC). Child Trends. Bethesda, MD.

OK-SDE - Oklahoma State Department of Education (OK-SDE). Early childhood education.

Pre-K Now - Pre-K Now. Resource center. The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew).

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Anderson 2017a* - Anderson S, Phillips D. Is pre-K classroom quality associated with kindergarten and middle-school academic skills? Developmental Psychology. 2017;53(6):1063-1078.

Bailey 2021 - Bailey MJ, Sun S, Timpe B. Prep school for poor kids: The long-run impacts of Head Start on human capital and economic self-sufficiency. American Economic Review. 2021;111(12):3963-4001.

Bassok 2016* - Bassok D, Miller LC, Galdo E. The effects of universal state pre-kindergarten on the child care sector: The case of Florida’s voluntary pre-kindergarten program. Economics of Education Review. 2016;53:87-98.

Bassok 2016a* - Bassok D, Galdo E. Inequality in preschool quality? Community-level disparities in access to high-quality learning environments. Early Education and Development. 2016;27(1):128-144.

Brookings-Cascio 2013 - Cascio E, Whitmore Schanzenback D. The impacts of expanding access to high-quality preschool education. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2013;1:127-178.

Brookings-Phillips 2017 - Phillips DA, Lipsey MW, Dodge KA, et al. Puzzling it out: The current state of scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2017.

Brookings-Whitehurst 2015 - Whitehurst GJ, Klein E. Do we already have universal preschool? Evidence Speaks Reports. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2015;1(1):1-8.

Brookings-Whitehurst 2018 - Whitehurst GJ. Does state pre-K improve children’s achievement? Evidence Speaks Reports. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2018;2(59):1-10.

Burger 2010* - Burger K. How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2010;25(2):140-165.

Camilli 2010* - Camilli G, Vargas S, Ryan S, Barnett WS. Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record. 2010;112(3):579-620.

Carr 2019* - Carr RC, Mokrova IL, Vernon-Feagans L, Burchinal MR. Cumulative classroom quality during pre-kindergarten and kindergarten and children’s language, literacy, and mathematics skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;47:218-228.

Carr 2021* - Carr RC, Peisner-Feinberg ES, Kaplan R, Mokrova IL. Effects of North Carolina’s pre-kindergarten program at the end of kindergarten: Contributions of school-wide quality. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2021;76:101317.

Chien 2010* - Chien NC, Howes C, Burchinal M, et al. Children’s classroom engagement and school readiness gains in prekindergarten. Child Development. 2010;81(5):1534-49.

Cohen-Vogel 2020* - Cohen-Vogel L, Sadler J, Little MH, Merrill B, Curran FC. The adoption of public pre-kindergarten among the American states: An event history analysis. Educational Policy. 2020.

Conger 2019 - Conger D, Gibbs CR, Uchikoshi Y, Winsler A. New benefits of public school pre-kindergarten programs: Early school stability, grade promotion, and exit from ELL services. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;48:26-35.

DeAngelis 2020* - DeAngelis CA, Holmes Erickson H, Ritter GW. What’s the state of the evidence on pre-k programmes in the United States? A systematic review. Educational Review. 2020;72(4):495-519.

Dorman 2017* - Dorman RL, Anthony E, Osborne-Fears B, et al. Investing in high quality preschool: Lessons from an urban setting. Early Years. 2017;37(1):91-107.

Durkin 2022* - Durkin K, Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Wiesen SE. Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children’s achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology. 2022.

Early 2019 - Early DM, Li W, Maxwell KL, Ponder BD. Participation in Georgia’s pre-k as a predictor of third-grade standardized test scores. AERA Open. 2019;5(2):233285841984868.

Fitzpatrick 2008* - Fitzpatrick MD. Starting school at four: The effect of universal pre-kindergarten on children’s academic achievement. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. 2008;8(1).

FRB-Ilin 2021 - Ilin E, Shampine S, Terry E. Does access to free pre-kindergarten increase maternal labor supply? Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. 2021: Working Paper No. 21-11.

Gormley 2005* - Gormley WT, Phillips D. The effects of universal pre-k in Oklahoma: Research highlights and policy implications. Policy Studies Journal. 2005;33(1):65-82.

Gormley 2018 - Gormley WT, Phillips D, Anderson S. The effects of Tulsa’s pre-K program on middle school student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2018;37(1):63-87.

Hamre 2013* - Hamre BK, Pianta RC, Downer JT, et al. Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. Elementary School Journal. 2013;113(4):461-87.

Haslip 2018 - Haslip M. The effects of public pre-kindergarten attendance on first grade literacy achievement: A district study. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2018;12(1):1-19.

Hill 2015b* - Hill CJ, Gormley WT, Adelstein S. Do the short-term effects of a high-quality preschool program persist? Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2015;32:60-79.

Hong 2019a - Hong K, Dragan K, Glied S. Seeing and hearing: The impacts of New York City’s universal pre-kindergarten program on the health of low-income children. Journal of Health Economics. 2019;64:93-107.

Hustedt 2015* - Hustedt JT, Jung K, Barnett WS, et al. Kindergarten readiness impacts of the Arkansas better chance state prekindergarten initiative. The Elementary School Journal. 2015;116(2):198-216.

Hustedt 2021* - Hustedt JT, Jung K, Friedman-Krauss AH, Barnett WS, Slicker G. Impacts of the New Mexico preK initiative by children’s race/ethnicity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021;54:194-203.

Kamerman 2007 - Kamerman SB, Gatenio-Gabel S. Early childhood education and care in the United States: An overview of the current policy picture. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. 2007;1(1):23-34.

Latham 2020 - Latham S, Corcoran SP, Sattin-Bajaj C, Jennings JL. Racial disparities in pre-k quality: Evidence from New York City’s universal pre-k program. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. 2020: Working Paper 20-248.

Li 2020a* - Li H. The effect of universal pre-kindergarten policy on female labor force participation—A synthetic control approach. Southern Economic Journal. 2020;87(2):440-482.

Lipsey 2018 - Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Durkin K. Effects of the Tennessee Prekindergarten Program on children’s achievement and behavior through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2018;45:155-176.

Manning 2010* - Manning M, Homel R, Smith C. A meta-analysis of the effects of early developmental prevention programs in at-risk populations on non-health outcomes in adolescence. Children and Youth Services Review. 2010;32(4):506-519.

Masuda 2021 - Masuda R, Lanier P, Peisner-Feinberg E, Hashimoto H. A quasi-experimental study of the effects of pre-kindergarten education on pediatric asthma. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(19)10461.

McKenzie 2021 - McKenzie SC, Jordan E, Wood C. Early access: Elementary school outcomes for Arkansas Better Chance public pre-kindergarten participants. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, Arkansas Education Reports; 2021.

Miller 2017a* - Miller P, Votruba-Drzal E, McQuiggan M, et al. Pre-K classroom-economic composition and children’s early academic development. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017;109(2):149-165.

Montrosse-Moorhead 2019* - Montrosse-Moorhead B, Dougherty SM, La Salle TP, Weiner JM, Dostal HM. The overall and differential effects of a targeted prekindergarten program: Evidence from Connecticut. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019;48:134-145.

Morrissey 2022a - Morrissey, T.W., Allard, S.W., & Pelletier, E. (2022). Access to early care and education in rural communities: Implications for children’s school readiness. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(3), 100-123.

NBER-Cascio 2017 - Cascio E. Does universal preschool hit the target? Program access and preschool impacts. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 2017.

NBER-Cascio 2021 - Cascio EU. Early childhood education in the United States: What, when, where, who, how, and why. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 2021: Working Paper 28722.

NHSA-Head Start history - National Head Start Association (NHSA). Black history month: A reflection on Head Start history.

NIEER-Friedman-Krauss 2019 - Friedman-Krauss AH, Barnett WS, Garver KA, et al. The state of preschool 2018: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). 2019.

NIEER-Friedman-Krauss 2021 - Friedman-Krauss AH, Barnett WS, Garver KA, et al. The state of preschool 2020: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER); 2021.

NIEER-Lamy 2005* - Lamy C, Barnett WS, Jung K. The effects of Oklahoma’s early childhood four-year-old program on young children’s school readiness. New Brunswick: National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), Rutgers University; 2005.

Peisner-Feinberg 2013 - Peisner-Feinberg E, Schaaf J, LaForett D. Children’s growth and classroom experiences in Georgia’s pre-K program: Findings from the 2011-2012 evaluation study. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham (FPG) Child Development Institute. 2013.

Pion 2021 - Pion GM, Lipsey MW. Impact of the Tennessee voluntary prekindergarten program on children’s literacy, language, and mathematics skills: Results from a regression-discontinuity design. AERA Open. 2021;7(1).

RAND-Karoly 2021 - Karoly LA, Cannon JS, Gomez CJ, Whitaker A. High-quality publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs: How much do they cost?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2021.

Sabol 2022* - Sabol TJ, Kessler CL, Rogers LO, et al. A window into racial and socioeconomic status disparities in preschool disciplinary action using developmental methodology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2022;1508(1):123-136.

Upjohn-Bartik 2018 - Bartik TJ, Hershbein B. Pre-k in the public schools: Evidence from within U.S. States. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 2018: Working Paper 18-285.

Valentino 2018 - Valentino R. Will public pre-K really close achievement gaps? Gaps in prekindergarten quality between students and across states. American Educational Research Journal. 2018;55(1):79-116.

Wong 2008 - Wong VC, Cook TD, Barnett WS, Jung K. An effectiveness-based evaluation of five state pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2008;27(1):122-54.

Wymer 2022* - Wymer SC, Corbin CM, Williford AP. The relation between teacher and child race, teacher perceptions of disruptive behavior, and exclusionary discipline in preschool. Journal of School Psychology. 2022;90:33-42.