An Overview of America’s Early Learning Systems

The early learning landscape in America encompasses several sprawling, disjointed systems as well as a variety of private child care programs and informal providers, serving altogether around 14.4 million children. It is a complex field; more than 2.2 million early educators are tasked with caring for and educating children during a rapid and formative time for brain development, yet they’re paid very little to do so. 

U.S. Spending on Early Learning and Care 

The United States funds early learning to a small degree compared to other developed nations, mostly focusing on programs for low-income children. The nation’s largest early learning investments come in the form of Head Start, a federally funded early learning program created in 1965 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which provides funding to states to subsidize the cost of care for low-income families and pay for quality improvement measures. 

While other developed nations, such as Finland, Norway and Canada, fund child care programs and subsidize the cost of that care for parents, America largely does not. The United States spends about 0.3% of its gross domestic product on early learning, compared to the average of 0.7% for wealthy nations that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international intergovernmental organization that advises governments on how to deliver better policies. Some countries spend up to 1.8% of their GDP on such programs.

This lack of investment is the root of deep issues with America’s early learning landscape, said Elliot Haspel, a senior fellow at the think tank Capita and author of “Crawling Behind: America’s Childcare Crisis and How to Fix It.”

“That shapes the context of just about everything when it comes to these stories,” about early childhood, Haspel said. 

To cover early childhood education, reporters should keep an eye on the federal government. Unlike the K-12 system, where the majority of funds come from state and local sources, federal sources make up the majority of early childhood funding, said Christy Felling, managing director of communications at the First Five Years Fund, a nonprofit that advocates for high-quality early learning programs. “I think that’s something that can get really lost,” Felling said. 

“There are a lot of innovative stories that come out of that state and local piece, but where the rubber hits the road is still always going to be federal when it comes to expanded funding,” for early learning, she added. 

Federally Funded ECE Programs in America

Head Start: Opposing Perspectives on Its Long-Term Effects 

Head Start (and its counterpart for infants and toddlers, Early Head Start) is a federally funded early learning program that comes with a specific set of standards and requirements for programs and staff. The programs are housed within Head Start centers, home-based programs and private child care programs. They offer child care and health, nutrition and educational services to low-income families. In FY 2024, the program received $12.1 billion in federal funding to serve about 750,000 children nationwide. This is a fraction of the need—about half of preschoolers and 1 out of 10 infants and toddlers who are eligible get a spot. 

While Head Start quality varies across settings, some research has found positive benefits. Children who have attended Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school and enroll in college and are less likely to experience poor health. Head Start has been found to have a positive impact on self-control and self-esteem and on parenting practices, and positive effects are evident in later generations of Head Start attendees. In addition to providing child care, Head Start offers children and their families health and dental services and screenings, home visits and other wraparound services.

Head Start has benefited from general bipartisan support, but some conservatives have criticized the program, claiming the program is too costly and pointing to other research that has found lackluster results. In 2024, the authors of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for America, proposed eliminating Head Start, saying the program “is fraught with scandal and abuse” without providing evidence. The authors of that blueprint said more funding should go to family-based child care or to help parents stay home with their children. 

Since the second Trump administration began in January, Head Start has been caught in the crosshairs of government funding freezes and scrutiny. Some Head Start programs are anticipating staffing and service impacts as funding has slowed while others have already reported closures and staffing cuts.

Experts say debates over early learning programs like Head Start often miss the mark, zeroing in on one year of a child’s life and expecting long-run impacts, something we don’t do with older grades. Questioning whether one year is having a lifelong impact is “kind of a silly question,” Haspel said. 

While journalists should present both sides of the debate, Haspel said it’s important to think about whether we are asking the right questions in the first place. There are dual roles that early childhood programs have, Haspel added. “There is the impact on a child’s education and also the impact on the family writ large,” like allowing parents to work.  

Casey Peeks, senior director of early childhood policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said when reporters cover Head Start, it should be holistic. Current coverage of Head Start often overlooks its wraparound model, she added, including the support offered to parents. 

“I think it’s important to highlight the leadership opportunities for parents that are built into the Head Start model,” Peeks said. “Of course, Head Start provides a sizable supply of child care slots and is an early learning program. However, if you’re just evaluating Head Start as a child care and early learning program, you’re missing the benefits and supports it has for parents seeking support with parenting skills, job search, degree attainment, substance abuse support and other related services.”

Child Care and Development Block Grant: How States Receive Subsidies 

The federal government also funds the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which is sent to states for child care subsidy programs aimed at low-income families. States must follow general federal eligibility guidelines when setting up and administering their programs, but they have considerable leeway for many aspects, such as how much they reimburse parents or programs for care. 

In FY 2024, the block grant was funded at $8.75 billion, $725 million more than the previous fiscal year, which followed several years of funding increases. Still, experts say the program still falls short of need, with only about 14% of eligible children receiving subsidies. This spring, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, admitted during congressional testimony that his department paused payments owed to states for their subsidy programs. CCDBG was not mentioned in Trump’s skinny budget for either increases or decreases in funding.

To get the funds, states must comply with requirements, such as only using the money to help parents who make less than 85% of their state median income, setting child care licensing rules and posting the results of child care inspections online. A percentage of CCDBG funds are used by states on quality improvement and training efforts as well.

CCDBG is overdue for reauthorization by Congress; that’s a rich time for reporters to cover the program and proposals to reauthorize it. “There’s more agreement than we commonly acknowledge on the policy principles of CCDBG,” Haspel said. “There is strong disagreement on how you pay for it.”

Preschool Development Grants: Differences in State Programs

Beyond this funding for Head Start and child care, the federal government also provides preschool development grants to states to help fund universal pre-K programs run independently by states. The Preschool Development Grant program is competitive and was funded at $315 million in FY2024. The grant program now faces elimination under President Trump’s 2026 budget proposal. Administration officials claim the program aims to “push DEI policies on to toddlers” and cite – what they say – are examples of this from Minnesota’s guiding principles for preschool programs, which include the words “intersectionality” and “racial equity.” (Research shows diverse materials, books and toys in classrooms benefit students, and such materials are viewed by state and national standards as a sign of early childhood classroom quality.)

States va­ry in how they set up their pre-K programs and also fund them with their own sources to different degrees. Some state-funded preschool programs are mostly run directly by districts while other pre-K classrooms are in a “mixed delivery model,” meaning child care programs can receive state funding to offer Pre-K enrollment within their buildings. 

While enrollment dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic, states are now seeing enrollment increases, including record enrollment in pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds. State investment in preschool reached an all time high in 2023, with $11.73 billion spent on state-funded preschool in 2022-23, which includes pandemic-relief funding. 

Research shows the quality of these preschool programs varies by state; states have different requirements for their educators, curriculum and class sizes.

Private Child Care

Across the country, children are also cared for by independent child care businesses, which in some cases are run privately but publicly regulated by states. State regulations for child care vary, including the staff-to-child ratios for certain age groups, teacher training and frequency of regulatory inspections. These child care businesses are expensive to run yet receive little-to-no public funding, so they must fund all operating expenses on parent tuition. Parents often pay exorbitant amounts for child care, yet child care staff make little. Early learning programs with more public funding, such as state pre-K and Head Start, can often pay staff members more, and they often draw child care teachers away from private businesses. 

There are also many informal child care settings, such as “friend, family and neighbor” care. The majority of infants and toddlers in the country are served in this informal way, cared for by a relative or community member. While these caregivers are largely shut out of formal training and funding opportunities, there are efforts around the country to provide more support to these individuals.

How Bias and Differing Perceptions Shaped Early Learning Programs 

These various early learning programs have a complex history in America. The country largely views child care as the private responsibility of parents. The federal government has provided bursts of funding in extreme situations. 

During World War II, Congress put $20 million into a universal child care program under the Lanham Act. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government allocated $39 million in child care-relief funds under the American Rescue Plan Act. But legislative efforts to create a more comprehensive, federally supported system have failed. In 1971, President Nixon vetoed legislation that would have established public, federally funded child care programs across the country. In 2021, then Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin effectively killed President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better legislation, which had proposed $400 billion in child care funding over 10 years to expand CCDBG to more children. (Learn more about the history of early learning here.)

Part of the challenge can be attributed to the racist and sexist roots of child care in America, namely a history of expecting women, and especially women of color, to educate and care for children for little-to-no money. Even today, some lawmakers regularly refer to child care as “babysitting,” reflecting a lack of respect for and understanding of the industry. COVID has helped catapult early learning into national consciousness, said Felling from the First Five Years Fund. 

“Pre-COVID, the child care issue was seen erroneously as a ‘mommy issue,’” Felling said. “One of the side effects of COVID was that it broke it open and showed this is not just an individual issue for moms to add to their giant plate of mental load and things they need to figure out. It is also an economic issue.”  

In recent years, more states have moved to lower educational and age requirements for child care staff, proposing teenagers as young as 14 staff classrooms. Despite decades of research on brain development during the first years of life and the many benefits of high-quality early learning, the field has yet to gather widespread support, in society or via public funding, as an extension of America’s education system.

This shift has happened at the same time states have been investing more in public pre-K systems, highlighting the fact that “child care and early childhood education are not exactly viewed the same,” Haspel said. 

While child care is viewed as a parent’s responsibility, pre-K is viewed more as education, despite the fact that children are learning in both settings. Pre-K, for its part, is now “sort of in this gray area,” he added. “Pre-K has become, more in recent decades, seen as part of the public education continuum.”