The goal is to provide equity across all socioeconomic backgrounds, enabling children to improve their academic and social skills before they attend kindergarten.
While some legislation for funding preschool has been passed on the federal level (including the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant) much of the advocacy still focuses on building broad support from diverse leaders in business, educators, child activists, philanthropists, law enforcement, and healthcare to lobby state legislatures.
[2] While variations in implementation are numerous, state-funded pre-k consistently offer programs on a voluntary basis for children and families, unlike compulsory elementary, which is mandated by law with exceptions to allow for homeschooling and alternative education.
Many researchers are concerned that once state governments get involved, preschool programs will focus on academic skills rather than the comprehensive developmental needs of children.
[10][9] Researchers recommend that policymakers consider the diverse perspectives of the primary stakeholders (i.e., children and educators) when developing policy for high-quality preschools.
[10] Research performed by Celia Genishi can aid policymakers in developing culturally responsive and developmentally appropriate high-quality preschool programs.
The movement gained ground in the United States as research showed that the high cost of high quality pre-K was beyond the ability of parents to pay, while the benefits from longitudinal studies showed societal benefits such as decreased crime, improved health, and greater earning capacity of children in later years.
These changes resulted from court decisions (Abbott v. Burke, New Jersey),[14] constitutional amendment (Florida), and the dedication of lottery profits (Georgia).
There remains a controversy about whether private providers will be driven out of business if local public schools offer full-day, tuition-free programs.
At the same time, some teachers unions have opposed siting pre-k programs in private centers and homes, as a drain of public education resources and a potential open-door to school vouchers.