Whoa! New Jersey is giving some mixed messages about child care | Opinion

By Jaclyn Falzarano

The early childhood education community is grateful that the state Legislature and Gov. Phil Murphy are earmarking $100 million in subsidies to support a struggling industry that is just beginning to recuperate from the pandemic.

We all certainly agree that quality child care is a critical lynchpin to the success of New Jersey’s economy. It is near impossible to dedicate oneself to a career without reliable, professional, accommodating child care.

Yet while the child care community voices its appreciation for this federal financial support, the message from the state of New Jersey is contradictory.

Yes, the state says, quality child care is a priority. Yet the state is also earmarking $50 million in the new budget for universal pre-kindergarten, which actively pulls children as young as 3-years old out of private child care centers and places them in public schools under the disguise of “free” education.

Child care centers — which also provide high-quality preschool education — and public school classrooms have very different intentions and delivery.

Community-based child care focuses on the development of the whole child — physically, emotionally and academically — through a schedule conducive to accommodate our state’s workforce hours throughout the year with very few days off.

Yet some state lawmakers are convinced that children ages 3- to 4-years-old should be sent to public school facilities, for a dramatically abbreviated calendar, with taxpayers footing the bill.

Universal pre-kindergarten had a well-intentioned start in just the 31 neediest cities in the state, offering certified teachers, class-size limits and two years of full-day instruction. And now — with the fiscal ’22 budget in place — universal pre-kindergarten has somehow ballooned to 156 school districts, 55,000 students and a huge, growing line item in the state budget.

To date, the state is investing more than $924 million in universal pre-kindergarten. Ultimately, the true cost of it in the public sector will be $2.6 billion per year. It will also dramatically add to the state’s pension fund requirements. Where will that money come from?

Students of families — no matter their income or need — can now enroll in these programs at a huge expense to all taxpayers, siphoning students away from the state’s private child care centers, which are specifically designed to focus on children pre-K and younger. This constitutes a 40% loss of operations to community-based child care centers, endangering the availability of care for those who need infant and toddler care.

So, which is it? Does New Jersey support child care centers or not?

Regardless of the answer, many key decision-makers seem unaware that most public school buildings aren’t even equipped to safely serve children under the age of 6.

School districts are not required to follow the same legal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards required by all private licensed childcare centers. However, if these public buildings were to be held to the same safety standards and brought up to code, it would cost taxpayers billions of dollars in upgrades and new construction.

Proponents of universal pre-kindergarten continue to ignore that inconvenient fact. Children under the age of 6 absorb toxins at twice the rate as those who are older. New Jersey has some of the oldest school buildings in the country; the average age is 54-years-old. Some, like in Newark, are more than 100-years-old. And none of them will be required to assure their buildings are contaminant-free for young children. These are life-altering toxins. We need to look no further than Flint, Michigan to see how important these environmental protections are for children.

Remarkably, overlooking these dangers, lawmakers continue to urge more and more school districts to offer these programs for children ages 3- and 4-years-old, merging the very different definitions of “early education” and “child care.”

Why are taxpayers spending so much to relocate children to programs that are not only less convenient for families but potentially dangerous to children? There is a solution to the quandary: achieving both the mission of UPK supporters and the child care community.

There should be one funding stream for preschoolers eligible for universal pre-kindergarten, flowing from the state treasury to impacted students, not school districts. Funds would run through the state Department of Children and Families’ county-based Child Care Resource and Referral agencies (CCR&Rs). For decades, the CCR&Rs have been used to pay for private child care where needed. Why not use them for universal pre-kindergarten?

Families would be given a choice of providers, more days of care, with extended daycare. Parents would have the freedom to tour various state-licensed childcare centers and then make their enrollment decision based on their family’s specific needs, rather than proximity to a public school building.

And this shift would substantially move the state closer to its goal of UPK by allowing families who can afford early childhood education to continue to pay as they normally would, while reserving limited state funds to provide services solely for those who cannot.

This is the only solution that is logical and fiscally responsible. It supports families. It is fair to taxpayers. And it ensures a viable child care industry for years to come.

Jaclyn Falzarano is vice president of government relations for Early Childhood Education Advocates, Inc., a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization headquartered in Cranford.