¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Last week, the asked if funding pre-K with cigarette taxes was a good idea.

I argue that seeking out new and creative funding streams has merit and that the tobacco tax is worth talking about. But I also caution that such a tax should not and cannot realistically be the long-term solution:

We need to get to a place where pre-K is considered a regular of the PreK-12 education system and is funded as such. Right now pre-K is still viewed as a separate program, making it vulnerable to cuts and dissolution. Embedding pre-K in preK-12 systems must happen at the state level. In Oklahoma, for example, funding for pre-K comes from the state using the same formula that funds each K-12 grade. This should be the end goal in every state.

As we’ve , the president’s pre-K plan is a long way from becoming law, but the fact that we are having these conversations about early education is important. One idea we’ve been considering here at ¹ú²úÊÓƵ is whether the president’s proposal should be passed as a Title I set-aside in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The benefit? Pre-K would become embedded in the federal government’s education law, helping to promote a pre-K – 12th grade education system instead of the K-12 system we currently have. The downside? The funding would not be able to be mandatory as the president’s budget proposal provides.