In reaction to the Ezra Klein post (see next entry), Bennett Gordon comments on the education blog of Utne.com that universal prekindergarten "reinforces existing inequalities" in the public schools and should be denied to middle-class children. That's an argument that Bruce Fuller of the University of California, Berkeley makes as well.

Given limited resources, I understand why Fuller argues that services should be targeted. But I find it hard to accept that it's a good idea to deny some children education to provide it for others. By that logic, one could ask whether the $550 billion or so spent on public education shouldnl't be targeted mostly to poor children? Certainly, more affluent families can send their children to private schools, can't they? Why should they be subsidized?