On July 17, 2015

Vermont’s new preschool law creates unlevel playing field

By Bill Mathis

Few education policy proposals have been adopted as widely and enthusiastically as preschool education. With near universal agreement, early education has been embraced across the political spectrum. This consensus was forged from “gold standard” research, conducted over decades, which almost universally found both academic and social benefits. One of the most attractive findings was that universal preschool education would help close the achievement gap. It would give needy children the kinds of opportunities that their more fortunate peers were routinely provided.

In Vermont’s version, the new preschool law (Act 166) provides for 10 hours of preschool instruction per week for all children, for 35 weeks during the regular school year. In essence, the local school district pays tuition to any state-approved public or private provider. (School districts may designate a preschool region.) For the coming year, the district pays $3,000 per student. Any additional hours are paid by the parents. For the child previously not provided any service, this is certainly a step forward.

As laudable as this initiative is, the devil is in the details. Early education can be a great boon or, with the wrong rules, it can provide unequal services to children. Last month, an 11-state Columbia University research study reported that economic segregation in our nation begins in preschool.

• Low-income families are the least likely to be enrolled in preschool.

• The most needy children are the most likely to attend low-quality programs.

• Children in public (as contrasted with private) preschools attend the most economically segregated programs.

• The children who gain the most from an economically diverse preschool are our least affluent children.

Unfortunately, Vermont’s new law has a number of devilish details that need fixing, lest we weld into place a system that inadvertently increases, rather than reduces, socioeconomic segregation.

This happens in several ways:

• Working parents typically need 40 or more hours per week of childcare/early education. While Vermont’s 10-hour subsidy is better than nothing, many of the working poor (minimum wage $9.60 per hour starting in 2016) cannot afford the other essential 30 hours of childcare each week. If they can afford any childcare program at all, it is the least expensive programs, populated by the less well-off families.

• On the other end of the spectrum, the more extensive and expensive programs are available only to those who can afford them. In the end, the programs drawing from more affluent parents will have better facilities, materials and enrichment activities. The $3,000 becomes a government subsidy for the more affluent. The result is that our preschool environment will be composed of pockets of poverty and enclaves of prosperity.

• Realistic program options exist only for those who can get there. If you don’t have transportation, time and a driver, some attractive programs will not be available to you. Compounding the problem, the more remote the location, the less likely a desirable program will be available. Such circumstances favor the most advantaged rather than the most needy.

• The federally funded Head Start program has income criteria and the clientele are low-wealth families. The result is governmentally designed economic segregation.

• Young children with disabilities are entitled to special education services. Yet, private providers are not required to provide or pay for these services. Thus, the handicapped child has fewer program choices available. The state has spent decades working on desegregating special education programs. It therefore makes little sense to build new programs that have a segregating effect.

• On the revenue side, private providers are not capped in what they can charge parents above the 10-hour minimum. On the expense side, public programs must employ licensed teachers but private providers only have to have one licensed teacher out of every 10. While it is unlikely that preschool programs will be a golden goose, this arrangement gives the private providers a financial advantage.

• Not bound by the same rules, a private preschool program could increase tuition rates by the entire stipend of $3,000 a year, charge the parents the same amount and keep the money as profit with no program improvements. Lest this be considered far-fetched, Michigan charter schools spent 20 percent less on instructional programs and doubled administrator salaries in a similar situation.

It is certainly timely that the state has formed a childcare commission, which it is hoped will address these concerns. Without timely attention, the supreme irony is that programs whose very purpose is to alleviate and compensate for inequitable educational opportunities, would have the perverse effect of worsening these very inequalities. But these problems can be fixed. Sliding and progressive scales, greater uniformity in staffing requirements, financial requirements, and greater support for one equitable public stream are parts of the solution.

These inequities were built into the law in order to gain broad political support for the program. But the one thing we cannot do is to increase inequities by well-intended programs that have exactly the opposite effect.

Bill Mathis is a member of the Vermont State Board of Education, managing director of the National Education Policy Center and a former school superintendent. He lives in Goshen.

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

Setting the record straight on education funding in Vermont

July 17, 2024
By Representative Pattie McCoy Editor’s note: McCoy, from Poultney, is the House Minority Leader. She has been a Republican house rep since 2015 serving Rutland-1. What’s the worst thing to do when you are stuck in a hole? Continuing to dig. And what is the worst thing to do in an affordability crisis? Make things…

What’s really going on with education funding

July 17, 2024
Dear Editor, Editor’s note: This letter is in response to Don Tinney’s commentary in the July 3 edition. Tinney is the president of Vermont-National Education Association (NEA), the union of 13,000 Vermont educators.  Tinney’s “hit piece” on Governor Scott is nothing new for the Vermont-NEA, although I’m surprised by the shrillness of the tone. Perhaps he realizes how…

New wildlife law protects against wanton waste

July 17, 2024
Dear Editor, Many cruel and unethical practices occur in Vermont’s fields and forests during hunting and trapping seasons, but you’ll never hear about them from Vermont Fish & Wildlife. Thankfully, watchdog groups like Protect Our Wildlife shed light on the most egregious, cruel and wanton acts of violence against wild animals in Vermont. One such act…

Learning to cope with floods

July 17, 2024
By Angelo Lynn Editor’s note: Angelo Lynn is the owner and publisher of the Addison Independent in Middlebury, a sister publication to the Mountain Times.  Lightning flashed outside my office window as weather forecasters were predicting two or more inches of rain, which got me reflecting on the $80 million to $90 million of federal…