“There are so many options for preschool here in the U.S., but you have to decide first if you want to enroll your kid into a play-based or academic-based program,” Ulla, an undergraduate student in my Child Development class said to me in February. “What did you want for your daughter?” I asked her. Ulla looked at me quizzically. “Play-based, of course,” as though the decision should have been obvious to me.

As a Finnish immigrant, Ulla sought an early educational experience for her daughter that was similar to what she would have received in Finland. She was puzzled by the idea that many parents would select academic rigor for their young children over enriching social-emotional experiences, but she rationalized that many parents may not have the opportunity to take the time she did in her preschool selection process.

Prior to the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic, the world of early childhood education was increasing in complexity as options for childcare and preschool increased each year. Over my 4 years in my developmental psychology doctoral program, I came to recognize a few dominant trends in early childhood education research:

• Childcare quality is measured by the structural features (such as materials in the classroom) and interactional features (such as teachers’ teaching practices) that are thought to be associated with better academic outcomes for children.
• Along these metrics, center-based preschools are typically of higher quality than home-based childcare programs.
• Parents who do not choose the highest-quality programs available to them may be unable to identify a high quality program or may not have sufficient information to make their decision.

This somewhat cynical summary of research in early childhood education may be old news to researchers and policymakers, but is likely strange and impractical to most parents who are responsible for making childcare decisions.

The study of childcare decision-making is primarily informed by an economics perspective, particularly rational choice theory. The illusion of rational choice is a significant issue with researchers’ views of the early childhood education decision-making process, whereby many experts assume that families will select the highest-quality program (according to research standards) that they can afford. If they don’t select the highest-quality program, then they must be unable to identify high-quality programs, or lack information about which programs are high quality. This assumption that all parents desire research-based high-quality childcare but may not have the time, qualifications, or information to identify it is the driving force behind policy efforts like the public-facing side of the Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS), which strives to make classroom quality ratings accessible to parents in the hopes that it will help with their decision-making process.

However, conversations with the parents making these decisions revealed that there may be multiple definitions of quality childcare. For many parents, the researcher-approved definition of quality may not align with their personal definitions of quality or, importantly, their childcare needs. A variable percentage of each parent’s childcare enrollment decision is informed by their personal and cultural preferences, while the rest of their decision is informed by limitations and constraints such as income, availability of childcare in their area, and their work hours. Although it is clear that many low-income families have a greater percentage of their decisions consumed by limitations and constraints, they should still be permitted to exercise their preferences, whatever they may be. Instead, many researchers and policymakers have focused their attentions on shifting these preferences and convincing families to enroll their children in center-based care over all other options.

Some evidence demonstrates that despite the best efforts of researchers to promote the value of high-quality childcare programs and parents’ own preferences for quality, parents frequently opt for, and are satisfied with, “lower-quality” childcare programs. From the viewpoint of childcare researchers, parents seem to overestimate the quality of their own children’s care. Putting aside the possibility of desirability bias in parents’ survey responses, it may be the case that parents have a more multifaceted view of what constitutes quality childcare, such that some aspects of perceived quality are relative and differ by individual and/or group priorities, perceptions, expectations, and culture. For ethnically minoritized families, this may mean that the home-based care option that celebrates their values, culture, and educational practices may be the highest quality option available to them, even if the program fails to meet the markers of quality set by research.

Wouldn’t it be ideal to promote a system in which families’ needs are met? Although it’s a noble mission to promote enrollment in a limited number of well-rated preschool centers as a way to improve developmental outcomes for all young children, this perspective problematizes parents’ (and particularly low-income parents’) choices rather than acknowledging systemic inequity in the school system. When considering the larger issues surrounding K-12 school choice, offering universal choice is a scary notion in a society with vast income and opportunity gaps. From this perspective, childcare and preschool choice can be viewed as the root of the widening educational achievement gap, in which families with fewer resources are often forced to enroll their children into programs with fewer resources, and families with the most resources place their children on private preschool waiting lists the moment they are born. It may seem strange for me to argue that despite all the obvious issues and constraints facing low-income families’ childcare choices, we should encourage all families to determine the best childcare options for themselves. However, the ability to exercise choice itself is also inherently unequal; those with the means to exercise choice will do so regardless of their local policies, and then assume that parents with fewer economic means will make the wrong choices for their children. The root of this issue is simple, yet extraordinarily difficult to address: the kinds of childcare programs that often fit the needs of low-income and minoritized families are also most likely to be the programs considered lowest-quality by research standards. In this way, many families are trapped into making the “wrong” choice, even if for them it’s the best choice.

Instead of politicizing the concept of preschool choice, parents’ choices can be viewed as a vote for the features and types of the programs that best fit their needs and preferences. Childcare experts should make a closer examination of patterns of choice and understand that parents know what works best for their children, and invest in those programs to ensure that they are meeting children’s needs – regardless of the setting. Moreover, quality scales need to be developed in recognition of the variety of settings that encompass childcare and the elements of quality most important to families.

However, the current state of childcare in light of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light even greater issues than unequal funding across childcare program types and  quality ratings. As states slowly begin to reopen childcare with new distancing measures and reduced class sizes, many of the underlying issues with childcare inequality have come to light in devastating ways. The issue now is not simply underfunding, but the nationwide inability of childcare programs to continue providing sufficient childcare for the families who need it.

Class size restrictions, under-enrollment, and low attendance rates have contributed to funding losses, and necessary health and safety measures have increased operation costs. Over 40% of current childcare programs will undoubtedly close if they are not provided with sufficient federal assistance. Moreover, childcare deserts, in which there are significant shortages in childcare availability, will become more ubiquitous, resulting in even fewer choices for parents and likely reductions in parents’ abilities to engage in the workforce. These deserts primarily impact low-income communities and communities of color, resulting in even more devastating losses of income and contributing to educational inequity in the long run.

The issue of providing families with childcare options that fit their needs is more crucial than ever. This dream of being able to provide a system in which families are able to choose between multiple types of programs may reflect a childcare system that we cannot return to (and may not want to return to). However, the crux of my argument remains the same: give families sufficient options for childcare that fit their needs and then fund them adequately and equally.

Jill Gandhi is an IES-PIRT fellow and Developmental Psychology Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Applied Psychology.