The question of an early education funding cliff generated a lot of interesting analysis, including the idea there will be a pause in the rise of pre-kindergarten and bigger kindergarten classes from the National Institute for Early Education Research’s Steven Barnett.

The NIEER’s co-director sent me his analysis of the impact of public funding cuts on early learning when I was reporting last week’s blog post. Instead of trying to summarize Barnett’s thoughtful and clear statement, I will get out of the way and let him speak for himself as today’s guest blogger.

This fall will see a halt, or at least a temporary pause, in the rapid increase in state pre-k that we have seen over the past several years. In some states this is a disaster. Ohio's program has been eliminated, and a whole laundry list of states has had their programs cut. These cuts will set back children's learning and development and make it more difficult for their parents to hold down a job because preschool programs provide education and child care.

The big picture for early childhood overall is that demand for preschool is increasing at the same time that public funding is decreasing. When a state cuts its child care programs that increases demand for pre-k and when it cuts pre-k, it pushes families onto the waiting lists for child care subsidies, and both kinds of state cuts will increase the applicants to Head Start. 

Economists have found in past recessions that parents respond to their tightened financial circumstances, job loss and pay cuts by reducing the amount of preschool they buy for their children and seeking more free services. We will see a larger kindergarten class this fall in the public schools because parents will send children who are near the age cutoff to kindergarten when they might otherwise have kept them in preschool.

At the same time, more families are falling below the income eligibility cutoffs so that Head Start, subsidized child care, and state pre-k programs will all see more applicants. In addition, Congress recently raised the income eligibility limits for Head Start to make more families eligible even without the current crisis. The federal stimulus bill provides more money for Head Start and child care (but not state pre-k), but impact on availability is limited because of flat funding in prior years and fears of expanding without having the funds to keep that level of enrollment in the future. Still, without the stimulus funds for states, budget cuts would have been much worse.

There seem to be some patterns in the cuts. There are states where planned expansions have been put off, New Jersey and New York, for example. The rust-belt states seem to have been particularly hard hit - Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois - have either had large, devastating cuts or considered them. In such states, small cuts will be considered a victory. One approach to cut educational quality is by reducing funding per child (e.g., Florida and Louisiana) and reducing supports for quality like professional development. Legislators in North Carolina sought to dismantle the state's top quality More at Four program and replace it with child care.

Until the public and their elected officials insist on treating pre-k like real education, as they do in states like Oklahoma and West Virginia, it will continue to be OK to tell young children, "Sorry you can't go to school this year because we don't have the money." It wouldn't make sense for kindergarten or third grade; it doesn't make sense for pre-k either. You don't eat your seed corn, but that is what some states are doing.

(Editor’s note: Barnett wrote this in response to a question about whether states are cutting pre-k funding in ways advocates worried about in the spring.)

This is only the beginning. On Thursday, Pre-K Now will release a report detailing how states are cutting, preserving or boosting their early learning budgets.