RALEIGH – Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, many politicians and left-wing activists continue to believe that universal preschool, funded by taxpayers and controlled by state regulators, would help solve North Carolina’s education problems.
Former Gov. Terry Sanford was an early convert to the idea and championed Head Start. Former Gov. Jim Hunt created Smart Start, billed as an innovative public-private partnership but in reality little more than a tax-funded piggybank controlled by local government agencies and day care chains. Next came former Gov. Mike Easley, who offered More At Four (which was actually more sensible than Smart Start because it focused only on disadvantaged kids).
All of these government initiatives to inoculate preschools against the ravages of poverty, delinquency, and educational mediocrity have posted disappointing results. It turns out to be exceedingly difficult to transform a few promising laboratory experiments into major state programs involving tens of thousands of people. Once you scale up, you lose focus and quality control.
Moreover, the people who create and fund these programs exhibit little interest in following up later to see if any initial gains in cognitive or behavior measures persist as the preschoolers move into elementary and secondary school. Past experience suggests that the benefits won’t last, thus negating the argument that spending tax money today will save tax money tomorrow through lower costs for remediation, incarceration, or welfare dependency.
Adam Schaeffer, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, has just published a new paper that outlines an intriguing solution to the problem. Rather than stick with government-run preschools or do nothing for the severely disadvantaged kids who might actually benefit from a well-structured preschool program. Schaeffer recommends that policymakers create an Early Education Tax Credit, similar to the school-choice tax credits currently in existence in Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere.
The John Locke Foundation has long advocated a similar alternative at the state level, which we’ve called the Smart Start Tax Credit. Ours was simply a dollar-for-dollar income-tax credit for every eligible child. I actually like Schaeffer’s version better. It would allow both individuals and corporations to take tax credits, either for direct payment of preschool expenses or for contributions to scholarship-granting organizations that serve low-income families.
The Early Education Tax Credit is also designed to be taken against income, sales, or property taxes, ensuring that low-income taxpayers can participate. JLF’s Smart Start Tax Credit accomplished the same goal by making the credit refundable, but I see Schaeffer’s point. It’s worth emphasizing to beneficiaries that they aren’t simply getting a check from the government – they are qualifying for a credit against taxes they already pay.
If I was creating educational programs and the tax code from scratch, I’d propose something a bit different. But given our current starting point, I’m all for transforming current government-run programs into a tax credit that transfers control and responsibility to families and providers operating within a competitive market for preschool services.
And instead of Smart Start or More at Four, let’s call it Families First. We’ve had bad luck with rhymes. Let’s try alliteration.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation