By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The expansion of California’s free transitional kindergarten program, a signature achievement of Governor Gavin Newsom, has led to significant increases in public preschool access. While parents report substantial savings and improved early childhood education for their 4-year-olds, the program’s growth has inadvertently destabilized the private child care sector, leading to closures and reduced availability of care for younger children. This unintended consequence raises questions about the sustainability of the private sector and the long-term availability of child care options for all families.
Read the original article here
It appears that Governor Newsom’s expansion of free preschool in California has created a bit of a stir, particularly among private daycare providers. The core of the issue seems to be that as the state steps in to offer more accessible and affordable early childhood education, the business models of private, for-profit daycares are struggling to compete.
This situation brings to mind a parallel with other essential services. When the government steps in to provide something that was previously only readily available through the private market, especially at a steep cost, it’s natural for those private businesses to face challenges. The sentiment often expressed is that if the government can sufficiently fill a gap that private entities were occupying, then it’s perhaps a sign that those private businesses were existing primarily to capitalize on a societal need that wasn’t being met by public resources.
A significant portion of the feedback suggests that many private daycares were charging exorbitant fees, often comparable to housing costs, for their services. For families, this presented a substantial financial burden. The introduction of free preschool is seen by many as a progressive step that directly benefits working-class families, helping to lift them out of poverty and strengthen the middle class by removing a major financial obstacle to employment.
The idea is that these crucial early years are foundational for a child’s development, impacting their stability, learning, socialization, and overall growth. Proponents of free universal preschool believe that making it a widespread standard could lead to significant long-term societal benefits, such as reductions in mental health issues and crime, in addition to the immediate economic advantage for parents who can then work without dedicating a large portion of their income to childcare.
When private daycares lament their inability to stay open, the common response is that perhaps their business model was fundamentally flawed or overly reliant on high prices. The argument is made that if a business cannot afford to operate while offering competitive pricing or adapting to new market realities, it might be a “skill issue” on the part of the business owner, or a sign that the business itself is no longer serving a necessary purpose in the face of a more accessible public alternative.
Some have also pointed out that private preschools often have thin profit margins, which seems counterintuitive given the high cost parents were paying. This raises questions about how these businesses were operating and whether the high prices truly reflected the quality of care or were simply a reflection of market demand and a lack of public options.
Furthermore, there’s a sentiment that education, especially at the foundational level, shouldn’t be a purely profit-driven enterprise. The notion that children might be seen as opportunities for financial gain by private companies is viewed negatively by many.
The comparison to other sectors, like healthcare, is also quite telling. Just as private insurers might struggle if universal healthcare were implemented, private daycares are now facing a similar challenge as free preschool becomes more prevalent. The core point is that when a basic necessity is made accessible through public provision, the private businesses that previously monopolized or significantly profited from that necessity will inevitably face a reckoning.
It’s also suggested that private daycares have an opportunity to adapt and evolve. This could involve offering supplementary services, focusing on younger age groups (birth to three), or finding alternative revenue streams. However, the underlying message is that simply expecting to continue operating as before, with high price points, is not a sustainable strategy in the face of a strong public alternative.
Ultimately, the situation highlights a broader philosophical debate about the role of government in providing essential services and the balance between private enterprise and public good. While some express sympathy for the individual businesses facing closure, the prevailing view seems to be that the expansion of free preschool is a positive development for society, particularly for families who have long been burdened by the high cost of childcare. The challenge now lies in how to manage this transition and support affected workers, if possible, as the landscape of early childhood education shifts.