1. Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D., Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago, 1993)Google Scholar; Shep Melnick, R., Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights (Washington, D.C., 1994)Google Scholar; and Holyoke, Thomas T., “Choosing Battlegrounds: Interest Group Lobbying across Multiple Venues,” Political Research Quarterly 56 (2003): 325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Steinmo, Sven, “American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Culture or Institutions?” in The Dynamics of American Politics, ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin (Boulder, 1994)Google Scholar; and Steinmo, Sven and Watts, Jon, “It’s the Institutions, Stupid! Why Comprehensive National Health Insurance Always Fails in America,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 20 (1995): 329–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Solders and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1992), 50.Google Scholar

4. Tsebelis, George, “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism,” British Journal of Political Science 25 (1995): 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Baumgartner and Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 31.

6. Pierson, Paul, “The Study of Policy Development,” Journal of Policy History 17 (2005): 34–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hacker, Jacob S., “Bringing the Welfare State Back In: The Promise (and Perils) of the New Social Welfare History,” Journal of Policy History 17 (2005): 125–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Heclo, Hugh, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance (New Haven, 1974), 156.Google Scholar

8. Pierson, “The Study of Policy Development,” 37.

9. Pierson, Paul, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton, 2004), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Thelen, Kathleen, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” American Review of Political Science 2 (1999): 369–404, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Pierson, Paul, Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment (Cambridge, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pierson, , “The New Politics of the Welfare State,” World Politics 48 (1996): 143–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Patashnik, Eric, “After the Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform,” Governance 16 (2003): 203–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Pierson, Paul, “Fragmented Welfare States: Federal Institutions and the Development of Social Policy,” Governance 8 (1995): 449–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Brian Robertson, David, “The Bias of American Federalism: The Limits of Welfare State Development in the Progressive Era,” Journal of Policy History 1 (1989): 261–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hacker, Jacob S. and Pierson, Paul, “Business Power and Social Policy: Employers and the Formation of the American Welfare State,” Politics and Society 30 (2002): 277–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Swenson, Peter, “Arranged Alliance: Business Interests in the New Deal,” Politics and Society 25 (1997): 66–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Peterson, Paul E., The Price of Federalism (Washington, D.C., 1995).Google Scholar

15. Bowman, Ann O’M. and Kearney, Richard C., The Resurgence of the States (Englewood Cliffs, 1986).Google Scholar

16. Campbell, Andrea Louise, How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State (Princeton, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mettler, Suzanne, “Bringing the State Back In to Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II Veterans,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. This article does not provide a comprehensive account of developments in American preschool education. Instead, it emphasizes the long-term consequences of venue shopping on these developments, highlighting particular episodes that illustrate the impact of policy feedback. While additional factors have influenced the policy actions taken by the states and the national government, this article does not claim to be comprehensive in either a historical or a theoretical sense.

18. This article emphasizes governmental policies toward educational programs at the expense of center-based child care or family child-care approaches that are often labeled “custodial,” a distinction that has also been made by other scholars. See Beatty, Barbara, Preschool Education in America (New Haven, 1995)Google Scholar; and Rothman, Sheila, “Other People’s Children: The Day Care Experience in America,” Public Interest 30 (1973): 11–27.Google Scholar

19. Kamerman, Sheila and Gatenio, Shirley, “Overview of the Current Policy Context,” in Early Childhood Education and Care in the USA, ed. Cryer, Debby and Clifford, Richard M. (Baltimore, 2003), 1–2.Google Scholar

20. Kirp, David L., The Sandbox Investment: The Preschool Movement and Kids-First Politics (Cambridge, Mass., 2007), 25Google Scholar; Fuller, Bruce, Standardized Childhood: The Political and Cultural Struggle over Early Education (Stanford, 2007), 285Google Scholar; and Steven Barnett, W. and Hustedt, Jason T., “Preschool: The Most Important Grade,” Educational Leadership 60 (2003): 54–57, 57.Google Scholar

21. While many of these congressional debates are described in the pages that follow, this article does not provide a comprehensive account of either their emergence or resolution. It highlights how these debates were influenced by venue shopping and policy feedback.

22. Sealander, Judith, The Failed Century of the Child: Governing America’s Young in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, 2003), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Hacker, “Bringing the Welfare State Back In,” 150.

24. See, for example, Hacker, Jacob S., The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Private and Public Social Benefits in the United States (Cambridge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gottschalk, Marie, The Shadow Welfare State: Labor, Business, and the Politics of Health Care in the United States (Ithaca, 2000)Google Scholar; and Quadagno, Jill, One Nation Uninsured: Why the U.S. Has No National Health Insurance (New York, 2005).Google ScholarPubMed

25. Katznelson, Ira, “The Possibilities of Analytical Political History,” in The Democratic Experiment: New Directions in American Political History, ed. Jacobs, Meg, Novak, William J., and Zelizer, Julian E. (Princeton, 2003), 391.Google Scholar

26. Zelizer, Julian, “History and Political Science: Together Again?” Journal of Policy History 16 (2004): 126–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Katznelson, “The Possibilities of Analytical Political History,” 383.

28. Olmsted, Patricia, “Where Did Our Diversity Come From? A Profile of Early Childhood Care and Education in the U.S.,” High Scope Resource 11 (1992): 4–9, 5.Google Scholar

29. Beatty, Preschool Education in America, 199.

30. Collier, Ruth Berins and Collier, David, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton, 1991), 8.Google Scholar

31. Rose, Elizabeth, A Mother’s Job: The History of Day Care, 1890–1960 (New York, 1999), 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Ibid., 5.

33. Bloom, Benjamin, Stability and Change in Human Characteristics (New York, 1964)Google Scholar; and McVicker Hunt, Joseph, Intelligence and Experience (New York, 1961).Google Scholar

34. For example, the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 1965 dramatically expanded the role of the national government in education policy. See Thomas, Norman C., Education in National Politics (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; and Graham, Hugh Davis, The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years (Chapel Hill, 1984).Google Scholar

35. For a complete account of the Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971, see Cohen, Sally S., Championing Child Care (New York, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zigler, Edward and Muenchow, Susan, Head Start: The Inside Story of America’s Most Successful Educational Experiment (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; and Congressional Quarterly, Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1971 (Washington, D.C., 1972).

36. Beatty, Preschool Education in America; Lazerson, Marvin, “The Historical Antecedents of Early Childhood Education,” in Early Childhood Education, ed. Gordon, Ira J. (Chicago, 1972)Google Scholar; and Slobdin, Carol, “When the U.S. Paid for Day Care,” Day Care and Early Education 3 (1975): 22–25 and 49.Google Scholar

37. Comprehensive Child Development Act of 1971, S 1512, 92d Cong., 1st sess. (April 5, 1971).

38. Cost has been a recurrent issue during debates over the public provision of preschool education. In response, preschool advocates have repeatedly sought to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of such programs, portraying them as a desirable long-term societal investment.

39. Woolley, John and Peters, Gerhard, The American Presidency ProjectGoogle Scholar [online]. Santa Barbara: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3251).

40. Milton J. E. Senn, interview with Mrs. Barbara Finberg, p. 22. Contained in Leona Baumgartner and Milton J. E. Senn, “Transcripts and Tapes of Interviews on the Child Development Movement.” Available at the National Library of Medicine (NLM ID: 2935107R), Bethesda, Maryland. The ninety-eight interviews in this collection were conducted between 1967 and 1975. The Finberg interview is undated, but its content suggests that it took place sometime in 1974.

41. Milton J. E. Senn, interview with Dr. Nicholas Hobbs, p. 26. Contained in Leona Baumgartner and Milton J. E. Senn, “Transcripts and Tapes of Interviews on the Child Development Movement.” Available at the National Library of Medicine (NLM ID: 2935107R), Bethesda, Maryland. The interview was conducted on 25 April 1974. At the time of the interview, Hobbs, a psychologist by training, was Provost at Vanderbilt University.

42. Education Commission of the States’ Early Childhood Task Force, “State Offices of Child Development: Do They Work?” (Denver: Education Commission of the States, July 1974). Preliminary Draft for Use Only at the Early Childhood National Symposium, 1–2 August 1974. Available at the ECS Archives. State offices of child development had been established in five states between January 1969 and January 1971.

43. Milton J. E. Senn, interview with Mrs. Lisbeth Bamberger Schorr and William Smith, p. 14. Contained in Leona Baumgartner and Milton J. E. Senn, “Transcripts and Tapes of Interviews on the Child Development Movement.” Available at the National Library of Medicine (NLM ID: 2935107R). Bethesda, Maryland. The interview was conducted on 23 April 1974.

44. “Grant Received for Early Childhood Implementation Project—State Services Planned,” Early Childhood Project, no. 1 (April 1972): 1–2. Available at the ECS Archives.

45. Hayas, Denise Kale and Ross, Doris M., The Very Young and Education: 1974 State Activity, Report no. 68 (Denver: Education Commission of the States Early Childhood Project, May 1975). Available at the ECS Archives.Google Scholar

46. “Early Childhood Programs: A State Survey, 1974–1975,” ECS Report no. 65, EC Report no. 11 (Denver: Education Commission of the States, April 1975). Available at the ECS Archives. A 1972 survey had found that only thirty states offered such services, revealing a sharp increase between 1972 and 1974.

47. Brademas, John, The Politics of Education: Conflict and Consensus on Capitol Hill (Norman, Okla., 1987).Google Scholar

48. Child and Family Services Act of 1975, S 626, 94th Cong., 1st sess. (February 7, 1975).

49. Schulman, Bruce J., The Seventies: The Great American Shift in Culture, Society, and Politics (New York, 2001).Google Scholar

50. Berkowitz, Edward D., Something Happened: A Political and Cultural Overview of the Seventies (New York, 2006), 87Google Scholar. Berkowitz characterizes 1974 as “an important dividing line between the expansive domestic policy of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program and the much more limited domestic policy of the seventies” (84).

51. John Brademas, “Legislation for Young Children and Their Families” (Speech, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Denton Associations for the Education of Young Children, Fort Worth, 31 March 1977). Available at the John Brademas Congressional Papers, New York University, Box III:15, Folder 30.

52. Sigman, Robert P., “Misleading Charges Against Child Care Act,” Kansas City Star, 30 November 1975Google Scholar; and Angle, Martha, “Even Nonexistent Parts of Child Bill Draw Fire,” Washington Star, 3 February 1976, A-7.Google Scholar

53. William V. Shannon, “Government and Families,” New York Times, 14 September 1975.

54. Fishhaut, Erna A. and Pastor, Donald, “Should the Public Schools Be Entrusted with Preschool Education? A Critique of the AFT Proposals,” School Review 86 (1977): 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Michel, Sonya, Children’s Interests/Mothers’ Rights: The Shaping of America’s Child Care Policy (New Haven, 1999)Google Scholar; and Norton Grubb, W., Young Children Face the States: Issues and Options for Early Childhood Programs (East Brunswick, N.J., 1987).Google Scholar

56. Vinovskis, Maris A., The Birth of Head Start: Preschool Education Policies in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations (Chicago, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Zigler and Muenchow, Head Start.

57. House Committee on Ways and Means, 1990 Green Book: Background Material and Data on Programs Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 101st Cong., 2d sess., 1990, Committee Print, 840.

58. McCathren, Randall R., “The Demise of Federal Categorical Child Care Legislation: Lessons for the ’80s from the Failures of the ’70s,” in Approaches to Child and Family Policy, ed. Wallach, Harold C. (Boulder, 1981), 131.Google Scholar

59. Collier and Collier, Shaping the Political Arena, 8.

60. Norton Grubb, W., “Choices for Children: Policy Options for State Provision of Early Childhood Programs,” Finance Collaborative Working Paper no. 5 (Denver: Education Commission of the States and the National Conference of State Legislatures, October 1988), 1. Available at the ECS Archives.Google Scholar

61. Smart Start: The Community Collaborative for Early Childhood Development Act of 1988, S 2270, 100th Cong., 2d sess. (April 12, 1988).

62. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Smart Start: The Community Collaborative for Early Childhood Development Act of 1988: Hearings on S. 2270, 100th Cong., 2d sess., 1988, 31.

63. Ibid., 294–95.

64. “Federalism and Education: The Evolving Federal-State Partnership,” Report of a Conference Jointly Sponsored by the Education Commission of the States and the Institute for Educational Leadership, “New Dimensions of Federalism: The Evolving Federal-State Partnership,” 14–16 September 1988. Available at the ECS Archives.

65. “Federal/State Relations,” Memorandum from Frank Newman to Governor Garrey Carruthers, Governor Bill Clinton, and Governor Ted Sanders, 25 September 1989, 2. Available at the ECS Archives.

66. Kirp, The Sandbox Investment, 102. Kirp criticizes preschool advocates’ use of the neuroscience literature on the grounds that it does not do justice to the nuanced nature of the findings. He argues that preschool advocates treat a series of complicated and provisional results as definitive. See also Fuller, Standardized Education.

67. “Early Childhood Education Programs,” Clearinghouse Notes: Early Childhood Education (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 15 February 1997). Available at the ECS Archives.

68. Kirp, The Sandbox Investment, 150.

69. Education Commission of the States, Early Learning: Improving Results for Young Children (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 2000), 4. Available at the ECS Archives.

70. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Multiple Program Coordination in Early Childhood Education: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, 106th Cong., 1st sess., 1999.

71. Ibid., 3.

72. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Early Education and Care: What Is the Federal Government’s Role? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development, 109th Cong., 1st sess., 2005.

73. Kirp, The Sandbox Investment, 100; and Fuller, Standardized Education, 5.

74. State-funded preschool programs did not exist in Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, or Wyoming. See Jessica McMaken, “State Notes: State-Funded Pre-Kindergarten Programs” (Denver: Education Commission of the States, March 2002). Available at the ECS Archives.

75. Peterson, Kavan, “Preschool Gets Record Boost in ’05,” Stateline.org, 16 November 2005.Google Scholar

76. Kagan, Sharon L. and Neuman, Michelle J., “Integrating Early Care and Education,” Educational Leadership 60 (2003): 58–63, 60.Google Scholar

77. Kirp, The Sandbox Investment, 266.

78. Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science,” in Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. Katznelson, Ira and Millner, Helen V. (New York, 2002), 701.Google Scholar

79. Beatty, Barbara, “The Politics of Preschool Advocacy: Lessons from Three Pioneering Organizations,” in Who Speaks for America’s Children? The Role of Child Advocates in Public Policy, ed. DeVita, Carl J. and Mosher-Williams, Rachel (Washington, D.C., 2001), 186.Google Scholar

80. Kirp, The Sandbox Investment; and Fuller, Standardized Education.

81. Pierson and Skocpol, “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science,” 713.

82. Ibid., 715.