Lately there has been a lot of discussion about whether states should opt in to the federal “Education Freedom Tax Credit”—a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit for individual contributions to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations that distribute funds to eligible K–12 students. This conversation comes at a time when many states are expanding support for their own educational choice investments, including through the use of education savings accounts (ESAs)—which last year received $10.6 billion in state funding, according to EdChoice. So far, most of the discussion has focused on the K–12 years, which prompts us to ask: Why hasn’t early childhood been a bigger part of the education choice movement?
We are not here to opine on whether governors should opt into the federal tax credit or if their states should enact or expand ESAs. Those decisions involve multiple considerations that vary across the political spectrum. We are here to say to education choice advocates that, if you are serious about expanding educational opportunity, you cannot afford to ignore the pre-kindergarten years. Here’s why:
- The case for impact—and return on investment—is strong. From an educational standpoint, the pre-kindergarten years are developmentally critical. If your goal is to improve student outcomes, the ceiling on what is realistically possible to accomplish is a lot lower if you don’t start early. That’s part of why the return on investment for early childhood programs with high standards is potentially quite high.
- Many children under the age of five are completely unserved and need options. In K–12, all of the children who would benefit from education choice funds are already guaranteed an education at a local public school. That is not the case in early childhood.
- The federal government supports subsidies for child-care funding, but for the most, part those subsidies are available only to working parents—and roughly a third of families have at least one parent who isn’t working. Even among families with both parents in the workforce, the subsidies reach only a small percentage of eligible families. And the amount of the subsidy is usually insufficient to support standards-based education.
- When it comes to pre-kindergarten education, more than half of four-year-olds and more than 80 percent of three-year-olds aren’t in a publicly funded program. Funding levels for early childhood vary widely across states, and there are major inequities across the system.
Because publicly funded pre-k is limited and private options are expensive, families with lower incomes are most likely to go without. Many of the children who miss out on pre-k for financial reasons are the same ones who later struggle in K–12. Targeted funding that gives those families access to quality early education is one of the highest-leverage interventions in the choice toolkit.
- The early childhood system is already built on choice. Early childhood is already delivered through a variety of provider and program types. This “mixed delivery system” incorporates both traditional K–12 schools and private providers (including religious providers). Many private and parochial schools start with a pre-k program, and in some cases, it’s much easier for a child to gain admission to those schools if they start at age three or four. For the schools, education choice funds that can be used for pre-k might allow them to expand their offerings in those years, and at the very least should make it easier to fill the classrooms they already have. For those who support educational pluralism, the early childhood system already has implemented many of the principles that are driving the choice movement.
- There’s an opportunity to drive policy coherence across systems. Both the ECE and K–12 systems value parental choice and access to high quality experiences to at least some degree, but these values are implemented very differently in the two systems. Having policies that reinforce the separation of early childhood and K–12 makes for incoherent public policy, which is frustrating for families. Flexible funding through education choice programs could serve as a bridge between the two systems, reflecting how families actually make decisions about their children’s education. And if choice advocates really believe in providing public resources to support parents’ education choices, why should they place artificial limits on when families can use those resources?
Where the policy stands and where it falls short
Few choice advocates have paid attention to the pre-k years—and the results are visible in their recent successes. At the federal level, the Education Freedom Tax Credit created in the One Big Beautiful Bill applies to children “eligible to enroll in a public elementary or secondary school.” While many elementary schools offer pre-k classrooms—and increasingly private and charter schools do, too—pre-k programs do not appear to be included in the statute. Similarly, the Trump administration’s executive order focused on education choice uses the term “K–12” and does not say anything about early childhood. The Department of Health and Human Services has issued guidance on how to use child care subsidy funds to support the goals of the executive order, but barring an unexpected twist when the Treasury Department issues final regulations, this tax credit will not include early childhood.
At the state level, most private education choice programs do not include early childhood. Education savings accounts are rooted in service for children with disabilities—but as these programs have expanded to serve broader populations in K–12, they have not seen a similar expansion into early childhood, though there are a few exceptions: Arizona and Florida allow ESA funds to be used for early childhood special education, and some Texas families can use vouchers for pre-k. Wyoming deserves credit for including early childhood as part of its ESA program, which was a priority for Governor Mark Gordon. The Equality State’s model is worth examining and expanding.
What advocates should do
Include early childhood! The educational benefits are substantial, the need is strong, and the politics are likely to be favorable. At the state level, any new ESA legislation or expansion should include ages three and four as eligible years, not just kindergarten and above. At the federal level, early childhood could be added to the existing tax credit or any new supports for education choice that emerge. Early childhood education is not an issue that cleaves neatly along party lines, as evidenced by existing investments in the “Southern Surge” states.
As education choice advocates push for policy change at the federal and state level, we encourage them to remember that education begins before kindergarten—and to work toward policies reflecting that reality. While some choice advocates and early childhood advocates may struggle to find common cause, others will turn out to be natural allies. It’s at least worth a conversation. We encourage policymakers and advocates working on educational choice to get that conversation started.
