Does NYC’s Pre-K Expansion Deserve a Failing Grade?

Bill de Blasio’s universal-preschool system appears to be favoring families with means.

National Journal
Alia Wong, The Atlantic
Add to Briefcase
Alia Wong, The Atlantic
Feb. 26, 2015, 11:56 a.m.

Up­dated on Feb­ru­ary 27, 2015

In his cam­paign for may­or in 2013, Bill de Bla­sio com­mit­ted to cre­at­ing a free full-day preschool pro­gram for all of New York City’s 4-year-olds. Back then, few­er than 27 per­cent of that age group had ac­cess to such ser­vices, largely be­cause of the high cost. And the idea was to nar­row the achieve­ment gap by re­mov­ing bar­ri­ers to early edu­ca­tion for fam­il­ies that couldn’t oth­er­wise af­ford it. Like many poli­cy­makers and chil­dren’s ad­voc­ates, in­clud­ing Pres­id­ent Obama, de Bla­sio had con­cluded that uni­ver­sal pre­kinder­garten—a mod­el known in edu­ca­tion circles as UPK—would be key to solv­ing the city’s so­cioeco­nom­ic in­equal­it­ies.

So, upon as­sum­ing of­fice last Janu­ary, de Bla­sio did what he had prom­ised: He planted the seeds of a uni­ver­sal pre-K pro­gram, and by the fall his ad­min­is­tra­tion had cre­ated more than 26,000 new, tu­ition-free seats in full-day preschools for chil­dren across the in­come scale. Le­gis­lat­ors and gov­ernors across the coun­try waxed lyr­ic­al about the city’s ini­ti­at­ive, fram­ing it as a par­agon for oth­er school dis­tricts and states to fol­low. After all, though most states have some form of pub­lic preschool in place, only two—Geor­gia and Ok­lahoma—cur­rently have free, uni­ver­sal pre-K that’s avail­able to kids of all means.

The prob­lem is, New York City’s uni­ver­sal preschool pro­gram isn’t look­ing so uni­ver­sal, ac­cord­ing to new find­ings from the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (Berke­ley) In­sti­tute of Hu­man De­vel­op­ment. In fact, the Berke­ley re­search­ers, who have been fol­low­ing the sys­tem’s pro­gress since its launch, say the preschool-ex­pan­sion ef­fort is tilt­ing sig­ni­fic­antly to­ward middle-class and af­flu­ent fam­il­ies—not the lower-in­come ones, whose kids would, ex­perts con­tend, most be­ne­fit from early-edu­ca­tion op­por­tun­it­ies.

“The de Bla­sio people have been very keen on uni­ver­sal en­ti­tle­ments as a way to al­le­vi­ate costs from middle-class budgets,” said Bruce Fuller, the UC Berke­ley edu­ca­tion and pub­lic-policy pro­fess­or who led the study and has long been skep­tic­al of uni­ver­sal pre-K pro­grams. “It seems like he’s really come to em­phas­ize [that pri­or­ity].”

“De Bla­sio has ex­pan­ded preschool among lower-in­come fam­il­ies but hasn’t in­vited new fam­il­ies in­to the sys­tem. He’s just play­ing mu­sic­al chairs and draw­ing low-in­come kids out of ex­ist­ing preschools.”

What Fuller and his team found is that the newly cre­ated preschool seats are more pre­val­ent in the city’s most af­flu­ent neigh­bor­hoods than they are in the poorest ones. Where­as 41 per­cent of the slots are loc­ated in the most af­flu­ent one-fifth of the city’s Zip codes, just 30 per­cent of them are in the poorest one-fifth—a dy­nam­ic that re­search­ers in part at­trib­ute to New York’s real-es­tate lim­it­a­tions. Up­per-middle-class areas ap­pear to have got­ten about as many new pre-K seats as have the poorest ones. And roughly 11,000 4-year-olds liv­ing in those poorest neigh­bor­hoods aren’t even en­rolled in the pro­gram, ac­cord­ing to Fuller.

The may­or’s of­fice did not re­spond to nu­mer­ous re­quests for com­ment be­fore this story was pub­lished. However, De­vora Kaye, the spokes­wo­man for the city’s Edu­ca­tion De­part­ment, sent an emailed re­sponse after the story ran strongly dis­put­ing Fuller’s find­ings:

This study is based on er­rors and false as­sump­tions that no early-edu­ca­tion ex­pert would make. Every 4-year-old be­ne­fits from a high-qual­ity edu­ca­tion­al ex­per­i­ence which is why we boos­ted the num­ber of seats across the City. Now, nearly two-thirds of free, full-day, high-qual­ity pre-K seats are in neigh­bor­hoods be­low the City’s me­di­an in­come. We are ex­pand­ing pre-K to every eli­gible 4-year-old, and we are com­mit­ted to meet­ing this goal.

Later, de Bla­sio spokes­man Wiley Norvell shared this state­ment, too:

Dr. Fuller com­pletely misses the point. Thou­sands of chil­dren, most of them in low-in­come com­munit­ies, now have pre-k for the very first time. But part of our mis­sion is also to cre­ate bet­ter op­tions even for those who had some sort of child­care be­fore. When a fam­ily that had to pay thou­sands out of pock­et is now get­ting pre-K for free, that’s a win for that fam­ily. When a child that would have sat in day­care is now get­ting high-qual­ity, edu­ca­tion­ally en­rich­ing pre-k in­stead, that’s a win for that child. And when a com­munity that pre­vi­ously only had half-day op­tions now has pre-k for the whole day, that’s a win for that com­munity. The whole point of this pro­gram is to cre­ate high-qual­ity, free, full-day op­tions for every fam­ily—every child, rich and poor. That’s why we’re here. And by any hon­est meas­ure, that’s what we’re achiev­ing.

The may­or’s ad­min­is­tra­tion made a sim­il­ar ar­gu­ment in re­sponse to Fuller’s pre­lim­in­ary study last fall, say­ing that his use of per­cent­age-growth data rather than hard num­bers was mis­lead­ing be­cause it failed to ac­count for the fact that many poor neigh­bor­hoods already had preschool seats.

Ac­cord­ing to the de Bla­sio ad­min­is­tra­tion, many more low-in­come kids are be­ing served: As Kaye in­dic­ated, al­most two-thirds of the new seats are in neigh­bor­hoods be­low the city’s me­di­an in­come of $50,000 for a fam­ily of four, ac­cord­ing to an in­form­a­tion­al sheet the of­fice dis­trib­uted to re­port­ers after the news broke. The doc­u­ment also chal­lenges the premise that 41 per­cent and 30 per­cent of slots are in the richest neigh­bor­hoods and poorest neigh­bor­hoods, re­spect­ively, say­ing the data “is mix­ing apples and or­anges” be­cause it refers to “the en­tire preschool land­scape” in the city for chil­dren ages two through five—not just the may­or’s uni­ver­sal pre-k ini­ti­at­ive. And the fact that the num­bers are tilted to­ward middle-class and af­flu­ent fam­il­ies, ac­cord­ing to the may­or’s of­fice, is based solely on the fact that these areas have more pre-k pro­grams, in­clud­ing private ones, to be­gin with.

But the study finds that, though de Bla­sio’s of­fice in­sists that the new pro­gram is be­ne­fit­ting lower-in­come parts of the city, that claim fails to take in­to ac­count the much high­er num­bers of 4-year-olds liv­ing in poor neigh­bor­hoods than in more af­flu­ent ones. Fol­low­ing up on the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­sponse, Fuller said the per­cent­ages re­veal that de Bla­sio is “evenly spread­ing new seats across the city, rich and poor … and this fails to move the sys­tem to­ward equit­able ac­cess.”

“To [de Bla­sio’s] cred­it, they did en­roll about 10,000 chil­dren in neigh­bor­hoods be­low the me­di­an in­come of all fam­il­ies; it’s just that when you ad­just for where 4-year-olds live” the dis­tri­bu­tion of seats doesn’t match the need, Fuller said, point­ing to sim­il­ar back­lash his re­search got last Novem­ber, when he pub­lished pre­lim­in­ary re­search on the pro­gram. “When we put out our first ana­lys­is, they said, ‘Not true, we en­rolled 10,000 kids from low-in­come fam­il­ies’—but a lot of them were pulled out of ex­ist­ing pro­grams.”

Fuller cited a preschool he and his team vis­ited in East Har­lem that said it had lost 54 kids to the new pub­lic pre-K cen­ters: “These were kids of low-in­come par­ents in East Har­lem who wer­en’t pay­ing any­thing for preschool. [De Bla­sio] has ex­pan­ded [preschool among] lower-in­come fam­il­ies but hasn’t in­vited new fam­il­ies in­to the sys­tem. He’s just play­ing mu­sic­al chairs and draw­ing low-in­come kids out of ex­ist­ing preschools.”

In­deed, un­der pres­sure to meet de Bla­sio’s en­roll­ment tar­get—which the­or­et­ic­ally amounts to more than 73,000 chil­dren by next school year—the city ag­gress­ively and hast­ily re­cruited kids to the city pro­gram. As many as three-fifths of those 26,000 chil­dren left ex­ist­ing preschools that aren’t par­ti­cip­at­ing in the pub­lic pro­gram, ac­cord­ing to Fuller. About 40 per­cent of those 26,000 slots were cre­ated in pub­lic schools, while the rest were div­vied up among some 500 private cen­ters that were able to con­tract with the city. (Many of the cen­ters that ap­plied for the pro­gram, ac­cord­ing to Fuller, were re­jec­ted; there are about 1,900 privately op­er­ated preschools in the city, mean­ing that nearly three-fourths of them have po­ten­tially lost busi­ness.)

That could also mean that de Bla­sio’s pre-K pro­gram isn’t ne­ces­sar­ily achiev­ing its ob­ject­ive of sig­ni­fic­antly ex­pand­ing ac­cess to chil­dren who wouldn’t have oth­er­wise en­rolled in preschool. Draw­ing from sur­veys con­duc­ted among a ran­dom sample of the preschools in the city that didn’t get fund­ing last fall, the re­search­ers con­cluded that these cen­ters have each lost an av­er­age of nearly 10 chil­dren to pre-K cen­ters that are par­ti­cip­at­ing in the pro­gram. Ex­tra­pol­at­ing from those sur­vey res­ults, the re­search­ers es­tim­ate that between 10,350 and 15,950 of the 26,000 new slots were filled by kids who were already slated to at­tend preschool. Like the East Har­lem ex­ample, some of these preschools are well-es­tab­lished cen­ters that have long served low-in­come fam­il­ies, of­ten thanks to grant money and oth­er aid. This re­dis­tri­bu­tion pro­cess, the re­search­ers say, has cre­ated in­stabil­ity for chil­dren and weak­ens the city’s early-edu­ca­tion net­work as a whole, cre­at­ing “waste­ful com­pet­i­tion” between the fee-based cen­ters and the pub­lic ones.

New York City is home to some of the largest in­come gaps in the United States; the chasm between Man­hat­tan’s richest and poorest house­holds in 2013 was the coun­try’s largest, ac­cord­ing to census data. And the state of New York, ac­cord­ing to some data sets, has the highest cen­ter-based preschool care in the coun­try, prob­ably be­cause of what it costs in the city. For the av­er­age low-in­come fam­ily in 2012, preschool tu­ition ac­coun­ted for nearly two-thirds of its house­hold earn­ings; for a me­di­um-in­come fam­ily, roughly half of its house­hold earn­ings went to pre-K tu­ition. Child Care Aware es­tim­ates that the av­er­age an­nu­al cost of cen­ter-based care for a 4-year-old in New York that year was $12,355—more than the amount a four-year City Uni­versity of New York col­lege charges for yearly tu­ition.

What that pic­ture amounts to is a two-tiered edu­ca­tion sys­tem that starts when kids are just tod­dlers—the gen­es­is of an achieve­ment gap that widens over time. In New York City, as in many places, early edu­ca­tion has largely been a lux­ury re­served only for fam­il­ies of means. And while re­search on the long-term be­ne­fits of preschool are widely de­bated, most ex­perts seem to agree that it can have a sig­ni­fic­ant im­pact on later out­comes. That’s par­tic­u­larly true for dis­ad­vant­aged chil­dren, who wouldn’t oth­er­wise have ac­cess to the kind of stim­u­la­tion a preschool set­ting can provide: everything from lan­guage de­vel­op­ment to prop­er nu­tri­tion. Hav­ing high-qual­ity early edu­ca­tion, some small-scale stud­ies sug­gest, can de­crease the like­li­hood that a child will have to re­peat a grade, get ar­res­ted, and rely on wel­fare.

Lead­ers ran­ging from politi­cians to busi­ness ex­ec­ut­ives are in­creas­ingly aware of these con­clu­sions, and many have been try­ing to ex­pand preschool op­por­tun­it­ies for years. New York City, for its part, has long tried to ramp up ac­cess. Former May­or Mi­chael Bloomberg, who served from 2002 to 2014, sought to ex­pand pre-K of­fer­ings in low-in­come parts of the city. Though Bloomberg’s ap­proach differed from de Bla­sio’s in that it wasn’t fo­cused on uni­ver­sal ex­pan­sion, that ini­ti­at­ive, too, had lim­ited suc­cess—and largely for sim­il­ar reas­ons: New York City’s per­en­ni­al space lim­it­a­tions and high-cost real es­tate. As the edu­ca­tion news source Chalk­beat New York re­cently re­por­ted, the city is scour­ing pub­lic-school build­ings for classroom space (only six charter schools are cur­rently par­ti­cip­at­ing in the pro­gram), as well as hav­ing real-es­tate brokers search for ad­di­tion­al private loc­a­tions. “The city is so built out—it’s so hard to find space,” Fuller said.

New York City’s pre-K pro­grams, ac­cord­ing to Fuller, prob­ably ex­pan­ded more eas­ily in middle-class areas be­cause that’s where space is avail­able. Hence, a para­dox: The areas that are ar­gu­ably most in need of ex­pan­ded pre-K op­tions are pre­cisely the places where it’s most dif­fi­cult to roll out new seats.

It’s a para­dox that cre­ates thorny is­sues polit­ic­ally, too. “It’s a sort of be­dev­il­ing di­lemma for Demo­crats—do they want to re­main fo­cused on in­equal­ity and nar­row­ing dis­par­it­ies in kids’ learn­ing or, in an elec­tion sea­son, are they go­ing to totally slip over to a middle-class agenda?” Fuller said. “De Bla­sio is really op­er­at­ing for the lat­ter and not the former.”

What We're Following See More »
HE WAS 85
Former Rep. Joseph McDade Dies
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Former Rep. Joseph McDade, an 18-term Republican congressman who was known for bringing federal dollars home to his northeastern Pennsylvania district and who was acquitted in 1996 on a bribery charge," died Sunday. He served in the House from 1963-99 and was a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Source:
ANALYSIS INCOMPLETE DUE TO DEADLINE
CBO: “Millions” Would Lose Coverage Under Graham-Cassidy
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Congressional Budget Office projected Monday that the last-ditch GOP ObamaCare repeal bill would result in 'millions' of people losing coverage. The agency did not give a specific number given a lack of time to do the analysis before a vote." CBO also said the bill would reduce deficits by $133 billion over ten years.

Source:
END OF THE ROAD
Susan Collins a “No” on Graham-Cassidy
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
ASKS ATTORNEYS IF THE ISSUE IS MOOT
Supreme Court Removes Travel Ban Case from Calendar
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Supreme Court on Monday dropped the dispute over President Trump's travel ban from its oral argument calendar. The high court directed attorneys for both sides to submit 10-page briefs on whether they view the case as moot by noon on Oct. 5. Both sides must address whether the expirationof Trump's travel ban order on Sunday rendered the case moot and whether the new order from the president renders the existing litigation moot."

Source:
PROTESTERS BEING ARRESTED
Graham-Cassidy Hearing Recesses
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login