Ten years into Vermont’s universal pre-kindergarten experiment, the results are in—and they don’t look anything like what the experts promised.
Back in 2014, lawmakers passed Act 166, launching what was billed as a groundbreaking investment in early childhood education. The theory—backed by research and supported by national organizations like the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER)—was that offering publicly funded Pre-K to every 3- and 4-year-old in the state would boost brain development, close opportunity gaps, and set children on a stronger academic path for life.
“High-quality early education builds a foundation for later learning,” the experts said. And so Vermont committed millions in taxpayer dollars to give young children a leg up. The program now covers more than 8,300 preschoolers, with the state advertising a base rate of $3,884 per child for 10 hours per week under Act 166.
But that’s just the starting number.
According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), the real amount Vermont taxpayers spend per Pre-K child is over $8,200, with total public spending—after adding in local and federal funds—reaching $9,639 per student. The colorful bar chart from NIEER shows it clearly: most of that money still comes from the state, not from Washington or local districts.
So while politicians and education officials point to the $3,884 figure, the actual price tag is two to three times higher—and academic results have not improved. It’s not just expensive daycare. It’s expensive daycare dressed up to look like school, with a cost nobody wants to talk about.
Test Scores Flat—or Falling
Recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—also known as the Nation’s Report Card—shows that Vermont’s fourth-grade reading scores in 2024 are the lowest they’ve been in two decades. Average scores have dropped from 227 in 2002 to 213 in 2024, placing Vermont below the national average for the first time in recorded history. Math scores have remained flat during the same period.
State-level assessments don’t fare much better. The 2021–2022 Smarter Balanced (SBAC) scores show that fewer than half of Vermont students in grades 3–9 are proficient in English Language Arts, and math scores plunge to just 26% proficient by ninth grade.
If universal Pre-K was supposed to improve long-term academic performance, the data do not support that outcome. In fact, Vermont students are doing worse now than before the Pre-K expansion began.
Why Did We Buy Into It?
To be fair, the push for early education wasn’t arbitrary. National studies like the Perry Preschool Project and the Abecedarian Project showed significant benefits for low-income children who attended high-quality early education programs—better high school graduation rates, lower incarceration, and improved earnings in adulthood. Many policymakers interpreted this as proof that universal Pre-K would yield similar benefits across all populations.
Vermont embraced the model with a mixed-delivery system, allowing parents to use their 10 hours in public school classrooms or private child care centers. The idea was to promote flexibility, reach more families, and level the playing field.
But the key variable—the part many glossed over—was quality. The landmark studies involved highly structured programs with specially trained teachers and extensive wraparound support. Vermont’s model, though well-intentioned, does not replicate that level of intensity or oversight.
A Cheaper, More Honest Alternative?
What Vermont has effectively built is a state-subsidized daycare system with educational branding. And there may be nothing wrong with that—so long as we’re honest about what it is.
If the state dropped the pretense of “schooling” and ran the program as a childcare enrichment model, we could eliminate costly state education bureaucracy. No need for licensed teachers with early ed endorsements, curriculum tracking, attendance reporting, or administrative audits. Instead, funding could be channeled directly to community centers, child care providers, or municipalities offering structured play, story time, snacks, and safe care—without the school compliance overhead.
Analysts estimate that this approach could cut costs by 25–35% per child, saving Vermont at least $8–10 million annually while delivering the same level of benefit.
So What Are We Doing?
The core problem isn’t that Vermont provides care for young children. It’s that we’ve wrapped it in a K–12 education model that inflates administrative costs and delivers no measurable return on investment in student achievement.
We were promised stronger readers, better math skills, and fewer gaps by grade school. Instead, we have a program that hasn’t moved the needle, and in some cases, correlates with declining results.
It may be time for a reset—not in how we support families, but in how we define and manage that support. Pre-K might be valuable, but only if we stop pretending it’s delivering academic miracles. The data suggest otherwise.
As Vermont continues debating education funding, maybe we stop pretending that every program needs to be “education” to matter. Sometimes, safe, affordable care is enough—and calling it what it is could help us deliver it better, for less.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #VermontEducation #PreKRealityCheck #TaxpayerTruth
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply