This dissertation offers empirical evidence for the ongoing debates over targeted and universal preschool. Specifically, I ask: (1) Does universal preschool narrow socioeconomic achievement gaps? (2) To what extent, and under what conditions, does the American public prefer universal to targeted preschool? (3) Is universal preschool better funded and more resilient to budget cuts than targeted? I address each question in its own paper and engage issues of program effectiveness, public opinion, and political economy throughout. The first paper aims to assess whether universal preschool can meet a central goal of targeted early childhood education initiatives--that of addressing early inequalities. I reanalyze four evaluations of universal preschool programs and compute their effects on achievement gaps by socioeconomic status and race. I also analyze enrollment patterns by student subgroup, reasoning that a program with equivalent benefits for all might still narrow gaps if it serves more children from less advantaged families. Overall, I find little systematic evidence to suggest that universal preschool narrows socioeconomic gaps. In the second paper, I design and field two nationally representative public opinion polls. These polls probe general support for preschool, preferences for its targeted and universal forms, and the causes and correlates of these preferences. On average, I find moderate support for preschool and no national preference for its targeted or universal forms. Opinion is conditioned by financial self-interest and egalitarian values: the threat of higher taxation significantly decreases support for universal programs, while support for targeted preschool is unaffected; likewise, Americans with strong beliefs in equal opportunity favor a targeted over universal approach. My third paper examines preschool finance. This paper begins with a political economic framework hypothesizing resource allocation under targeted and universal regimes. It then describes state per-child expenditures on targeted and universal preschool from 2002 through 2011 and compares the effect of the Great Recession on targeted and universal programs using interrupted time series analyses. In all, I find no evidence to support the claim that universalism secures more public resources or exhibits greater resilience to budget cuts in the context of a financial crisis. Together, these papers overturn much of the existing theory and rhetoric employed in service of the preschool debates. In their place, I propose a new theory of targeting and universalism based on that quintessential American value, equality of opportunity. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]