Preschool Enrollment, Spending Hit Record Highs, but Access and Quality Gaps Persist
Although the 2023-24 school year saw historic gains for early childhood education, the national landscape for preschool remains uncertain. The National Institute for Early Education Research(NIEER) has released its 2024 State of Preschool Yearbook, which for the past 22 years has provided a comprehensive, vital portrait of American preschool education. Its analysis shows that state-funded preschool programs nationwide have not only recovered from COVID-19's devastating impacts, but reached a record high in both enrollment and spending during the 2023-24 school year.
But those increases are skewed by a small number of states making progress; others are not doing as well. Quality remains uneven from state to state and even within states, quality and availability often are a matter of ZIP code. While some states have increased funding, enrolled more students, and worked to meet national quality benchmarks, others have lagged, offering programs that meet fewer national quality benchmarks — or none at all.
Shifting sands at the federal level have left much of the sector uncertain about what the future might hold and how the Trump administration's proposed cuts to the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies might affect Head Start and other early childhood programs. NIEER reports that eliminating Head Start funding would mean a decline of more than 10 percentage points in access to public preschool in several states and more than 20 percentage points in some.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The 2024 State of Preschool Yearbook underscores how essential it is for states to proactively prioritize and expand investments in early childhood, and a special section highlights four states — Alabama, Michigan, New Mexico and Oklahoma — a bipartisan mix that NIEER identifies as pre-K leaders and strong examples others can emulate.
Though this might seem like a clarion call for states to step up, W. Steven Barnett, NIEER's senior director and founder, says it is not that simple. For many states, Head Start is the foundation their preschool programs are built on and it is on the chopping block.
'Federal Head Start money is about the same magnitude of all state pre-K spending,' he says. 'The notion that states could replace that funding, especially overnight, is not realistic. If you had said, 'Over 10 years, this is going to go away,' maybe. But overnight? It would be a disaster.' In some states, like Mississippi and West Virginia, 23% of 3- and 4-year-olds are in a Head Start program.
'We don't know if they're going to zero out the program, but if they do, the money to serve a half a million 3- and 4-year-olds disappears. In some states that's almost a quarter of the kids who benefit the most,' Barnett adds. 'They say, 'You need to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps,' but also, 'I'm taking your boots away.' Where are these states going to find the money to replace that?'
The 2023-24 school year saw new records set for funding and enrollment for state-funded preschool programs. Across the country, enrollment increased by more than 111,000 children nationally to reach 1,750,995 children, an increase of 7% from the previous year. This marked an all-time enrollment high with 37% of 4-year-olds and 8% of 3-year-olds enrolled. Despite the increase for 3-year-olds though, most state pre-K programs continued to serve primarily (or only) 4-year-olds.
States spent more than $13.6 billion on preschool in the 2023-24 school year, which included $257 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds, an increase of nearly $2 billion over the prior year. State spending on preschool increased in all but five states that have a public preschool program. California, New Jersey, New York and Texas led funding, spending $1 billion or more on preschool. Together, these four states accounted for 51% of all state spending on preschool.
State spending per child increased in all but eight states with preschool programs. Including state, local and federal sources, spending per child was $8,856, an inflation-adjusted increase of $635 per child that reflects a strong growth in state funding as federal recovery dollars decreased.
Over the past two decades, NIEER's research has consistently found that higher quality preschool programs yield increased and enduring benefits for children's learning and development. Based on classroom data, monitoring, surveys and assessments, the institute's research has developed 10 benchmarks that measure the quality standards for preschool programs that support that growth.
The 2024 Yearbook finds that 2 1/2 times more children in the U.S. attended lower-quality programs that met five or fewer of those benchmarks than children attending programs that met nine or 10, underscoring again the tremendous variation across states and zip codes.
According to the report, many states aren't hitting the quality standards that would set their programs up to provide benefits that give pre-K its greatest value for children and taxpayers. Five states, for example, have no state-funded program in 2023-24; eight states spent less than half the cost needed to meet minimum quality standards. Others just aren't serving enough young learners.
'If you do pre-K right, you put in place a foundation for future success in school and in life,' Barnett says. 'We have strong causal evidence linking quality pre-K to educational attainment, whether you graduate from high school or go to college, and strong causal evidence that links educational attainment to other positive life outcomes. Not just how much money you make, but good pre-K sets in motion this chain where people will live longer, healthier lives. Taxpayers make out great when that happens.'
Barnett adds: 'If that [foundation] is not there, then we're focusing much more on remediation, special education, dropout prevention, incarceration — all these negative expenditures rather than positive outcomes. If you're meeting five or less benchmarks and you're not spending enough money to pay for a quality program, it may look like you're saving money, but you're throwing it away.'
Alabama, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi and Rhode Island are the only states nationwide to meet all 10 benchmarks. Other states come close, meeting nine benchmarks. On the other hand, 21 state-funded preschool programs meet five or fewer of these quality standards.
Over the years, the NIEER State of Preschool Yearbook has become a sort of Bible for legislators, school officials, researchers and other early learning stakeholders to understand what's going on in the sector. Barnett points out that people might hear 'survey' and think the reporting is based on sampling. In reality, he says, it's more like a census because it consists of 300 questions sent to state school administrators. By the time all the appendices are organized, the final report is inches thick.
'There have been changes in state governments where no one with institutional memory was left,' Barnett says. 'They used the Yearbook to figure out what their own policies were — which is fair because they're the ones that filled it out in the first place. The Yearbooks have been a long-standing partnership with administrators. It's as much their product as it is ours. We write up the narrative up front, but all the state page narratives are constructed with state administrators to make sure we represent their programs correctly.'
Preschool spending has reached an all-time high, but fiscal uncertainty could reverse the trend, the report warns. Several top economists predict weak growth in the U.S. economy, or even a recession, which, combined with federal cutbacks could create powerful headwinds for state pre-K programs. It wouldn't be the first time: According to the report, the 2008 recession led to lower pre-K funding for more than half a decade. Barnett says it's a critical time for states to learn from each other and take proactive steps with policies and programs that prepare their youngest learners for their best possible future.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Black America Web
26 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE


CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.


The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in an interview Friday brushed off Elon Musk's campaign spending threats in light of the tech billionaire's public fallout with President Trump, suggesting he isn't worried. The spat between Trump and Musk began with the latter's criticism of the president's legislative agenda making its way through Congress. Johnson said he built a closer relationship with the then-special government employee and that the tech mogul has been led astray regarding the 'big beautiful' spending package. 'Look, it doesn't concern me. We're going to win either way because we're going to win on our policies we're delivering for hardworking Americans and fulfilling those promises,' Johnson told Fox News's 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' 'But look, I like Elon and respect him. I mean, we became friends in all this process,' he continued. 'I've been texting with him even this week … in trying to make sure that he has accurate information about the bill. I think he has been misled about it.' Musk, who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to assist in Trump's win in the 2024 presidential election, was the biggest donor during the White House race. Amid his recent spat with Trump, which broke out in public as the two traded insults and threats, Musk argued that without his political expenditures, Trump would have lost to former Vice President Harris, Republicans would lose the majority in the House and the GOP would have failed to flip the majority in the Senate. Trump then threatened to have all federal contracts associated with the billionaire's companies to be cut off. As the fight between the two intensified, the tech executive floated the idea of forming a third party and accused the president of being named in the late Jeffrey Epstein's files. Trump has denied close ties to the disgraced financier. Musk's opposition to the GOP megabill — which he called a 'disgusting abomination' — is largely tied to deficit spending. The billionaire argued the legislation would balloon the national debt and fails to slash enough spending. The package faces an uphill battle in the Senate. While Musk, who recently left his position as the top adviser to Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), seemed open to repairing ties on Friday, the president appeared to be OK with moving on. Johnson in the interview Friday defended the spending bill and commended Trump for his handling of the squabble. 'We're going to make good on this… I like the president's attitude. You know, he is moving on. He has to,' he told the host. 'He's laser-focused on delivering for the people. And House and Senate Republicans are as well. So, we've got our hand at the wheel.' 'We're going to get this done just like we told the people,' the Speaker continued. 'And if you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation.' The Louisiana Republican added, 'I'm telling you, all boats are going to rise and everybody's going to be in a much better mood before we go into that midterm election in 2026.'