How to expand publicly funded pre-k education—and do it well

(PDF-816 KB)

Preschool enrollment fell across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the nation’s lowest-income families experiencing the most precipitous drop.¹ And among school-age children, historically disadvantaged students saw achievement gaps widen even further.² COVID-19 and education: The lingering effects of unfinished learning,” McKinsey, July 27, 2021.

This disruption to children’s schooling, including prekindergarten (pre-K) for children ages three through five, was a major contributor to the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on women, children, and low-income households.³ While the return to the classroom marked a return to stability for many families, the economic, health, and social challenges that disproportionately affected low-income households, women, and historically marginalized communities still exist.⁴ States now have an opportunity to strengthen the foundation that supports families, particularly those in poverty, by implementing best-in-class pre-K educational programs.

The potential benefits of public pre-K

Public prekindergarten (pre-K) can close as much as 50 percent of the racial achievement gap if children attend a high-quality program.¹Gregory Camilli et al., “Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development,” Teachers College Record, 2010, Volume 112, Number 3. Consider that in New York City, the first cohort of students to attend universal preschool saw a significantly reduced racial achievement gap in standardized test scores in third grade in 2019. For more, see Leslie Brody, “NYC reading-test scores suggest free preschool’s potential benefits,” Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2019. In this way and many others, all of society stands to benefit from publicly funded pre-K programs.

Children benefit. Children enrolled in pre-K have higher test scores, better language development, and better motor skills than those who do not.² They also often have better attendance and fewer behavioral problems in school.³ A study of the Abbott preschool program in New Jersey found that academic advantages for pre-K participants persisted through high school.⁴ A study of Boston’s pre-K program found that it led to higher high school graduation rates, and students who attended pre-K were also more likely to take the SAT and enroll in college.⁵ Later in life, children who attended high-quality pre-K programs have higher earnings as adults and are less likely to need public assistance or be imprisoned.⁶

Parents benefit. A randomized study of the universal pre-K program in Washington, DC, found a ten-percentage-point increase in maternal labor force participation.⁷ Free or affordable early childhood education may enable greater workforce participation by parents in many cities and states, which could reverse the trends toward reduced labor force participation seen over the past several years. Many such trends are described in detail in McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace series.⁸Women in the Workplace 2022, McKinsey and LeanIn.org, October 18, 2022.

Economies benefit. As state economies continue to recover from COVID-19, business leaders may be invested in building strong early childhood programs; in fact, several cities and states have seen large employers push adequate and affordable pre-K options for their employees.⁹ And while estimates of governments’ ROI for preschool vary, they are invariably positive: one attempt to standardize ROI calculations across pre-K research studies found a benefit of between $2 and $16 for every dollar invested.¹⁰ Long-term evaluations, like the Perry Preschool and Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) initiatives, show increasing benefits over time, suggesting that some more recent studies may understate the long-term benefits of high-quality pre-K to adult outcomes.¹¹

These benefits are widely recognized, and there is broad support for public pre-K spending in the United States. Polling has found that most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, believe that public policies should be designed to help families afford early care and learning.¹² Universal pre-K has been championed by leaders across the political spectrum: Oklahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia were among the first states to invest in a universal program, and there are now at least seven states with universal programs, as well as others on the pathway toward one.¹³

The benefits of a high-quality early childhood education are supported by rigorous research and can touch many corners of society. Quality pre-K education programs help children from all backgrounds, with proven long-term benefits in academic, mental-health, and social outcomes. For children from historically disadvantaged communities, pre-K can help break the cycle of poverty (see sidebar “The potential benefits of public pre-K”).⁵ But how state and local governments invest in pre-K education matters tremendously. Recent studies have found that investments that fail to focus on program quality can backfire and negatively affect students’ long-term achievement.⁶ High-quality programs, by contrast, can produce pre-K graduates who have stronger educational outcomes through high school and into adulthood.⁷

To ensure best-in-class, cost-effective pre-K programs, state and local leaders can assess the needs of their population and their available budget and then take lessons from districts that have implemented these programs successfully. To help with those efforts, we have identified eight elements that have yielded pre-K programs that have delivered positive impacts for students and taxpayers. Drawn from research and the experiences of dozens of jurisdictions, these elements prioritize lessons from states and municipalities with programs that have resulted in positive outcomes for children from kindergarten to 12th grade. We also explore six major decisions that states typically make regarding program design, the trade-offs those decisions could entail,⁸ and the cost considerations for standing up a high-quality program. For states that decide to invest in pre-K, this could provide a road map for how to design a program that will be both high quality and cost-effective.

Research-backed, parent-approved: The elements of a high-quality pre-K program

Large-scale, publicly funded pre-K programs exist in many states and large cities across the country, and many have been rigorously studied. Across the research, the evidence is clear: one of the single greatest drivers of child outcomes, both academically and behaviorally, is high-quality interactions between teachers and students.⁹

States can make intentional design choices that could enable the kinds of high-quality teacher–student interactions that lead to positive outcomes. This often requires clear decisions and investment up front and sustained attention from stakeholders all along the delivery chain. Across successful programs, we’ve identified eight specific variables that support high-quality instruction and interactions in early childhood education. Each of the eight variables involve providing the necessary time, space, and support for teachers and students to learn and develop meaningful connections.¹⁰These eight elements overlap considerably with the ten benchmarks for public pre-K programs provided by the National Institute for Early Education Research, as well as the Learning Policy Institute’s recommended initiatives for effective pre-K. This growing alignment in the field can support policy makers as they prioritize where to make investments. For more, see The state of preschool 2021, 2022; and Linda Darling-Hammond, Madelyn Gardner, and Beth Meloy, Untangling the evidence on preschool effectiveness: Insights for policymakers, Learning Policy Institute, January 2019.

Sufficient time in the classroom

Studies show that full-day pre-K programs lead to better student outcomes than half-day programs.¹¹One recent study in Colorado found that full-day pre-K had substantial positive effects on children’s vocabulary and basic literacy skills when compared with half-day pre-K. For more, see Allison Atteberry, Daphna Bassok, and Vivian C. Wong, “The effects of full-day pre-kindergarten: Experimental evidence of impacts on children’s school readiness,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2019, Volume 41, Number 4. Research also found that full-day Head Start programs boosted cognitive skill development more than half-day programs. For more, see Christopher R. Walters, “Inputs in the production of early childhood human capital: Evidence from Head Start,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, October 2015, Volume 7, Number 4. And parents report higher satisfaction with full-day programs because they make it easier to accommodate work and other responsibilities.¹²

Opinions vary over whether “full day” pre-K—typically about six hours—is sufficient for a full-time working parent; some systems supplement with paid aftercare or other options for working families to extend the day.¹³

Low teacher-to-child ratio

Small class sizes are easier to manage, allowing for more individualized instruction and improved safety and supervision. For this reason, high-quality programs typically limit their teacher-to-child ratio to 1:10, with a maximum of 20 children in a classroom with two adults, typically including a lead teacher and an assistant teacher.¹⁴The state of preschool 2021, 2022. Interestingly, the research benefits of even smaller class sizes are not significant enough to necessarily merit the costs. For more, see Jocelyn Bonnes Bowne et al., “A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood education programs: Are thresholds of quality associated with greater impacts on cognitive, achievement, and socioemotional outcomes?,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2017, Volume 39, Number 3.

Developmentally appropriate learning standards

Just as in K–12 education, standards that determine what children should learn in pre-K can drive classroom practice and accountability. Most states have a set of standards in place, but these standards vary.¹⁵ High-quality pre-K standards in general strive to address the specific academic and social needs of four-year-olds¹⁶ and directly shape curricular choices and professional development for teachers. Nationally standardized expectations, such as the Head Start Early Learning Outcomes Framework, could provide a road map for determining learning standards in line with state and local expectations of children in grades K–3. A lack of alignment risks compromising students’ learning and could require kindergarten teachers to undergo redundant instruction.¹⁷

Just as in K–12 education, standards that determine what children should learn in pre-K can drive classroom practice and accountability.

Effective curriculums

Multiple research studies have demonstrated that young children learn social and academic skills best and most easily through play.¹⁸ Historically, more affluent families have gravitated most toward play-based early-learning models, but all children, including those from low-income households, could benefit from this approach.¹⁹ Similar to learning standards, linking pre-K and K–3 curriculums could ensure smooth learning transitions and logical content progressions for children.

Specialized teacher education

Strong pre-K programs tend to have lead teachers with specialized training in early childhood instruction and child development.²⁰ At present, nearly all successful programs require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree for lead teachers. However, given the current labor shortage in early childhood education, states may want to consider a skills-based approach to identify those who have the skills to be successful but who have not yet obtained the credentials (that is, creating an on-ramp for currently uncertified early childhood teachers).²¹

Ongoing professional development

Successful programs offer teachers ongoing professional development that is aligned to the curriculum, incorporate on-the-job coaching, and include practical activities such as role-playing and demonstrations. This training is most effective when teachers have time to practice their new skills, are supported in reflecting on their practice, and have the time and space to set goals.²² Coaching that specifically targets teacher–student interactions could improve student learning.²³

Regular assessment of child progress

Individual child assessments offer visibility into a child’s progress and readiness for kindergarten. Research-backed tools such as Head Toes Knees Shoulders, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Teaching Strategies GOLD, and Woodcock–Johnson (WJ) tests measure student skills during everyday classroom activities and provide rich data for teachers to adjust their instructional practices during the year.²⁴For more, see Catherine E. Snow and Susan B. Van Hemel, eds., Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2008; Ellen C. Frede, Kwanghee Jung, and Shannon Riley-Ayers, Early learning scale: Technical report, National Institute of Early Education Research, September 2010; Megan M. McClelland et al., “The Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders revised: Links to academic outcomes and measures of EF in young children,” Frontiers in Psychology, 2021; “Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test,” ScienceDirect; “Research,” Teaching Strategies; Bashir Abu-Hamour et al., “The use of Woodcock-Johnson tests for identifying students with special needs-a comprehensive literature review,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, Volume 47. Classroom-level assessments can provide data to families to inform program choice, to system administrators to maintain program accountability, and to leaders and coaches to tailor support to teachers. One of the most widely deployed assessments is the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), which has demonstrated reliability, validity, and an ability to predict student outcomes.²⁵CLASS can effectively assess teacher–student interactions in ways that have direct impacts on student outcomes. For more, see Karen M. La Paro, Robert C. Pianta, and Megan Stuhlman, “The Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Findings from the prekindergarten year,” The Elementary School Journal, May 2004, Volume 104, Number 5; Jason T. Downer et al., “The Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System (inCLASS): Preliminary reliability and validity of a system for observing preschoolers’ competence in classroom interactions,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Volume 25, Number 1; The state of preschool 2021, 2022.

Robust data systems

Ideally, pre-K program data systems are linked to the state’s overarching K–12 data systems to track alignment and impact over time. Many states are struggling to get truly integrated systems off the ground due to a set of common barriers—fragmentation in the early childhood system, inconsistent data use and collection, and confidentiality concerns.²⁶ Most states have adopted Quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) as a tool to standardize and communicate publicly about early childhood program quality. Evidence from successful state programs demonstrates that pairing QRIS with other proven strategies to boost pre-K quality can be very effective.²⁷Daphna Bassok, Preston Magouirk, Anna J. Markowitz, “Systemwide quality improvement in early childhood education: Evidence from Louisiana,” AERA Open, 2021, Volume 7. Some studies have cautioned that the link between QRIS scores and student outcomes is limited. For more, see Jill S. Cannon et al., “Quality Rating and Improvement Systems for early care and education programs: Making the second generation better,” RAND Corporation, 2017. This has not been the case in all states, though: for QRIS to improve quality, states should consider investing in complementary program supports.

A, B, or C: Crucial pre-K program decisions

States will weigh the trade-offs of numerous decisions. Six are particularly pressing.

Define the scope: Universal versus targeted

Considering universal versus targeted pre-K

Universal programs are, by virtue of their sheer size, more expensive to operate—but they can introduce potential benefits as well as costs.

All children, regardless of background or socioeconomic status, gain greater language skills and experience social, emotional, and cognitive benefits in socioeconomically diverse pre-K classrooms.¹“Strong foundations: Promoting diverse and inclusive preschool settings,” The Hunt Institute, The Education Trust, The Century Foundation, and Educational Alliance, June 2022. One study found that low-income children benefited more from universal programs than targeted programs. Though there are many variables at play, the researcher posited that at least some of the variance was due to the in-classroom peer effect of a heterogeneous classroom. For more, see Elizabeth U. Cascio, Does universal preschool hit the target? Program access and preschool impacts, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, number 23215, March 2017. Universal programs have a higher likelihood of enrolling a socioeconomically diverse class than targeted programs, given that they are open to everyone, have simpler application processes with less of a time burden, and carry fewer social stigmas than targeted programs intended for lower-income families. Indeed, targeted programs do not appeal to everyone, even the families for whom they’re intended. Research would suggest that low-income families are more likely to enroll in a universal program than a targeted program for which they are eligible.²One global analysis found that highly targeted programs find takers for 56 percent of available resources at most, and some found takers for as low as 3 percent of resources. Universal programs, meanwhile, had significantly higher adoption rates, including from targeted populations. For more, see Diloá Athias and Stephen Kidd, Hit and miss: An assessment of targeting effectiveness in social protection with additional analysis, Development Pathways working paper, updated June 2020. Moreover, some research suggests that universal programs—particularly those that benefit children—enjoy a broader, more sustained coalition of support.³

The benefits of universal programming are clear, but everything hinges on implementation—specifically access that is both universal and inclusive, as well as sufficiently funded.

Universal access. Some localities have created programs open to all children, but due to a lack of sufficient funding or capacity, not every child who wants a seat gets one. With scarcity, children who face the greatest barriers to entry—those whose parents may lack the resources or information to enroll them—may be the least likely to gain access.

Sufficient funding. Across existing public pre-K programs, per-child spending varies widely. The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) estimated in 2020 that only four states (New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, West Virginia) and Washington, DC, were spending enough on their public pre-K program to support a full-day, high-quality program with teacher salaries comparable to those in K–12.⁴ NIEER’s rationale to suggest that pre-K teachers be paid the same as K–12 teachers is tied to certification requirements, arguing that if teachers are held to the same standards in pre-K as in K–12, states will need to pay comparably to maintain a workforce. Access without quality can do a disservice to the children who participate.⁵ Where states have limited funds, they should consider the balance between serving fewer children at a higher cost per child and serving all children at a lower cost per child.

Inclusive access. Some researchers caution that even the most well-intentioned universal programs will exacerbate the achievement gap as more privileged families flock to the higher-quality programs and leave lower-income families to programs of lesser caliber.⁶ Some states have elected to focus on closing these critical gaps by serving only those children most at risk of entering kindergarten underprepared, as compared to other students.⁷ But jurisdictions can take intentional steps to ensure that all programs within a universal system are high quality through targeted coaching and additional support to programs in higher-poverty neighborhoods.

Today, there are strong examples of both targeted and universal programs, and programs of both types have struggled to achieve quality. In either model, states need to consider the other design choices that will create more even quality across the entire system, such as appropriate pay for teachers, targeted coaching and support, and additional services for at-risk families and children. Some states have also considered a hybrid—targeted universalism—in which the program is open to everyone but with focused recruitment or additional services for eligible populations.⁸

Universal programs are open to all children, whereas targeted programs have eligibility criteria. Views differ—sometimes widely—on different program types. Ultimately, states could consider how much they could spend on pre-K and how best to meet the needs of children who stand to gain the most from a high-quality pre-K experience (see sidebar “Considering universal versus targeted pre-K”).

Locate the funding

To build a successful pre-K program, states will need a sustainable funding source, and most provide funding over and above the limited federal resources available. A few states allocate pre-K funding as part of their K–12 funding formula.²⁸Bruce Atchison, Louisa Diffey, and Emily Parker, How states fund pre-K: A primer for policymakers, Education Commission of the States, February 2018. At least five states use funding from their state lottery for pre-K, and several states use so-called sin taxes from alcohol and tobacco. Some states are using one-time American Rescue Plan (ARP) funding to support pre-K expansion efforts or to expand access and eligibility, even if only temporarily. For more, see Lori Connors-Tadros, Kathy Stohr, and GG Weisenfeld, “States sharing strategies to target federal funds to an integrated, equitable, high-quality system of early care and education,” National Institute for Early Education Research, June 30, 2021. Some states (and localities) have funded pre-K out of their general budget. Others have identified new revenue sources. Still others have used public–private partnerships for specific program components, such as new program pilots, assessment rollouts, or data system expansions. However, private funding to date has not been extensive enough to support annual operating costs for large-scale pre-K programs.

Establish clear governance

In most states, the department of education has principal oversight over the statewide pre-K program. Some states have created an agency focused on early childhood education; others split responsibilities across multiple agencies; and a few have delegated such programs to health and human services departments. Regardless of who is in charge, the decisions made at the state level have implications at the local level. Some states require funding and management to flow through local education agencies (LEAs) or similar entities, which may oversee key decisions such as determining the district’s minimum hours of pre-K operation, outlining professional-development requirements for teachers, and even establishing class size and teacher-to-student ratios.²⁹

Determine accountability for services

States have different criteria for determining how public funds are allocated between providers. Some states mandate that funds be split between public and private providers. For example, West Virginia state law requires that 50 percent of pre-K classrooms in each county be in private settings.³⁰ Other states leave the decision to localities. There are examples of programs with strong outcomes in a public-school-only model, such as in Boston, and of programs that allow for multiple delivery models, such as in Oklahoma.

Decide whether to serve three-year-olds

Research suggests that children benefit from a second year of high-quality preschool,³¹ which would translate into more children entering pre-K at age three rather than waiting until age four. Based on the research and the precedent being set by some cities, some states might consider supporting two years of preschool, which could be an immense help to low-income families.³²

Given limited resources, most states and localities have focused, for now, on implementing one year of preschool. Today’s existing two-year pre-K programs—such as those in Boston, New York City, and Washington, DC—started with four-year-olds and expanded to include three-year-olds because the programs demonstrated positive outcomes and cities were able to identify additional resources to support the effort.

Offer wraparound services

Federal Head Start program standards require the provision of basic health and hygiene services, referrals for coordinated services, parent education, and a role for parents in program governance. Many Head Start and other pre-K programs include families as powerful tools for improving child outcomes by recognizing the strengths and diversity of their backgrounds and by finding ways to engage them in classroom activities. Students could benefit from additional services, but there is insufficient research to definitively conclude that this is critical to quality as states prioritize where to spend their funds—particularly given that implementation of such practices is largely determined at the classroom level or center level.³³

Today’s existing two-year pre-K programs started with four-year-olds and expanded to include three-year-olds because the programs demonstrated positive outcomes.

How much will this cost?

RAND’s estimated average cost of $12,700 per child to run a high-quality, full-day pre-K program in 2019 is not far from that year’s national per-child K–12 average of $13,187.³⁴ Actual spending on pre-K is barely half that figure: the national average in 2021 was just $6,804.³⁵ To fund a high-quality program, states will need to narrow this gap.

Of course, there is no magic number to be spent per child to achieve high quality. However, there are prerequisites. There need to be enough teachers to maintain a reasonable classroom ratio. A full day of services for children needs to be funded, and teacher compensation needs to be sufficient to attract qualified candidates and limit turnover. The overall scale of certain administrative operations, such as assessment and coaching, varies widely from state to state and may be funded by other sources, such as local payment matching—in which case states need not bake those costs directly into their own per-child spending. And while many states have left some one-time federal stimulus funds unspent, there may be significant up-front investments they could make now to support a pre-K expansion, including spending on facilities, workforce development, and other program start-up costs.

Pre-K is an investment that delivers proven, widespread benefits, and research suggests an increasingly clear sense of how states can design programs to unlock them. There are certainly risks, particularly if the amount spent per child is insufficient for operating a quality program. But there are steps states could take to design programs that fit local circumstances, resources, and goals. The research suggests that investing in the next generation of students, particularly as we continue to recover from the economic and educational impacts of COVID-19, is likely to prove well worth the cost.

Explore a career with us

Search Openings

Expanding publicly funded pre-K: How to do it and do it well