As Michigan charts its course for the next four years, the future of early childhood education has emerged as a critical battleground for gubernatorial candidates, moving from a niche policy concern to a central issue impacting the state’s economic competitiveness and family stability. Building upon the significant investments made under Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s administration, including the landmark PreK for All initiative, hopefuls from across the political spectrum are now compelled to lay out their visions for a sector at a crossroads. Despite these recent expansions and supportive programs like Child Care Back Office and Nurture Benefits, the industry remains plagued by a fundamental economic paradox: child care workers struggle to earn a living wage while families buckle under the increasingly prohibitive cost of care. While candidates may agree on the foundational importance of early learning, their proposed solutions reveal deep-seated ideological divides on how to address this crisis, setting the stage for a debate that will define the next chapter for Michigan’s youngest residents and the workforce that supports them.
A Divergent Path for PreK and Literacy
While there is a rare moment of bipartisan consensus on the value of continuing the state’s PreK for All program, the candidates’ priorities for its evolution diverge dramatically, reflecting fundamentally different philosophies on the purpose of early education. Tom Leonard, the Republican former Speaker of the Michigan House, has declared improving third-grade reading scores as his single most important goal. He advocates for a significant “revamp” of the universal pre-K system, aiming to transform it from what he terms “a glorified babysitting service” into a strictly educational platform. Drawing inspiration from the “Mississippi Miracle” policies, Leonard’s vision involves a rigorous focus on literacy, specifically by training teachers in the “science of reading” and integrating phonics instruction at a much earlier stage. He argues this approach will provide children with a critical “step up,” ensuring they possess foundational reading skills long before they enter kindergarten. In contrast, Democrat Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s current Secretary of State, views the existing program as a crucial but ultimately insufficient first step in addressing what she calls the state’s “early literacy and early mathematics crises.” Her proposal is far more ambitious, aiming to transition Michigan towards a universal, full-day, five-day-per-week early childhood education system that would make care accessible for all children from birth through pre-K. To fund this massive undertaking, Benson suggests a hybrid model involving “initial startup funding” from the state, supplemented by the expansion of cost-sharing programs like the existing Tri-Share model, which divides child care expenses among the state, employers, and employees. This approach frames early education not just as a literacy tool but as essential infrastructure for working families.
The broader debate on early learning extends beyond the two front-runners, with other candidates offering distinct perspectives that add complexity to the conversation. Independent Mike Duggan, the former Mayor of Detroit and an early champion of universal pre-K, proposes a “Marshall Plan” for early reading. His plan, detailed on his campaign website, calls for a collaborative effort uniting teachers, administrators, and parents to implement evidence-based practices such as intensive student tutoring, summer reading initiatives, and small-group learning. This strategy emphasizes a community-wide mobilization to tackle literacy challenges. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Aric Nesbitt has introduced a focus on fiscal accountability into the discourse. He recently called for a formal audit of the Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential (MiLEAP) Child Development and Care Program. Citing concerns about preventing potential fraud, similar to issues uncovered in other states, Nesbitt’s actions underscore a desire to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being managed with the utmost integrity before any further expansion of services is considered. This highlights a key tension within the Republican platform: a desire to support early learning initiatives while maintaining a strict oversight of public spending and program efficiency.
The Economic Realities of the Child Care Workforce
The stark economic precarity of Michigan’s early childhood workforce, where professionals earn wages substantially below the statewide median, has drawn vastly different levels of engagement from those vying for the governor’s office. Jocelyn Benson directly connects the health of the child care sector to the financial well-being of its employees. Her platform includes providing “startup grants and technical assistance for new child care providers,” with a specific emphasis on alleviating “child care deserts” where access is most limited. She posits that by strengthening the financial stability of these small businesses, their employees will, in turn, be “able to make more for providing the care,” creating a more sustainable ecosystem. This strategy treats the wage issue as a direct consequence of the business challenges faced by providers. In a striking contrast, Tom Leonard acknowledged that the topic of low wages for child care workers was not a central part of his campaign focus. When questioned about potential solutions for a workforce earning an average of just $13.88 per hour, he admitted, “This is the first that I’ve heard that that’s an issue,” and stated it was a matter he would “have to look into.” This response indicates a significant gap in his platform regarding the labor dynamics of the early education sector. Other candidates, such as Democrat Chris Swanson, the Genesee County Sheriff, have advocated for living wages across Michigan’s economy in broader terms but have not offered specific policy proposals tailored to the unique challenges of the child care workforce.
The future of several key state-supported programs designed to bolster the child care industry also hangs in the balance, representing another clear point of divergence between the leading candidates. Jocelyn Benson has voiced strong support for continuing and expanding initiatives like Nurture Benefits, which offers health insurance for providers, and Child Care Back Office, which provides crucial administrative support to small operators. She views these programs as integral to her broader goal “to make Michigan the small business capital of the nation.” Benson placed particular emphasis on the Rx Kids program, which provides direct cash assistance to new mothers and is currently active in 20 communities. Calling it a “data-driven program that is yielding results,” she advocated for expanding it into a statewide benefit, citing its importance in helping families afford essentials during a child’s most critical developmental stages. Tom Leonard, however, stated that he was unfamiliar with all three of these programs—Nurture Benefits, Child Care Back Office, and Rx Kids. Consequently, he was unable to comment on whether his administration would support their continuation, leaving the fate of these critical support systems for both providers and families deeply uncertain under his potential leadership. This lack of awareness underscores a significant policy difference, with one candidate prepared to build on existing infrastructure and the other potentially starting from scratch.
Tackling Bureaucracy and the Affordability Crisis
There is a clear and widespread consensus among the candidates that the administrative and bureaucratic hurdles faced by child care providers represent a significant impediment to the sector’s growth and stability. Tom Leonard, a staunch proponent of “regulatory reform,” expressed his willingness to reconsider “redundant” regulations that he believes primarily serve to generate fees for the state without meaningfully enhancing child safety. While emphasizing that essential safety-related regulations are non-negotiable, he signaled an eagerness to listen to providers’ specific concerns about the “hoops and hurdles” they encounter and to actively streamline the licensing and compliance process. Jocelyn Benson also identified the difficulty of opening a child care business as a primary driver of why care is “unaffordable and often inaccessible.” She highlighted a critical inefficiency in Michigan, where “inefficient government operations” can extend the business licensing timeline to nearly a year, compared to just four to six weeks in other states. Her proposed solution, however, differs fundamentally from Leonard’s. Rather than solely focusing on deregulation, Benson advocates for significantly increasing state capacity by doubling or even tripling the number of state employees dedicated to this licensing and support process. Her goal is to transform state government from an “obstacle course” into a “helping hand,” actively facilitating the creation of new child care spots. This sentiment was echoed more broadly by Republican Ralph Rebandt, a retired pastor, whose platform includes a general desire to “reduce administrative burdens” for teachers across the board.
Ultimately, the high cost of child care was framed by several candidates as a central economic issue directly linked to Michigan’s ability to retain its population and compete for talent. Jocelyn Benson articulated this challenge by stating that the state is not yet a place where future generations, including her own son, could easily “choose to raise his family and call home” due to the escalating cost of living. Her proposed solutions were multifaceted, encompassing the expansion of the Tri-Share program, reducing the administrative burden on providers to lower their operational costs, and providing direct financial relief to families through programs like an expanded Rx Kids. The public-private cost-sharing model of Tri-Share, in particular, demonstrated a rare instance of bipartisan appeal. Republican U.S. Representative John James, alongside his Democratic colleague U.S. Rep. Hillary Scholten, recently introduced federal legislation aimed at creating a national version of Michigan’s program. This move signaled high-level support for this specific mechanism as a viable solution to the affordability crisis and showed how state-level innovations were influencing the national policy conversation. The convergence on this single issue suggested that while the gubernatorial candidates remained far apart on many specifics, collaborative models that distribute the financial burden of child care may have represented the most promising path forward.
