Getting your Trinity Audio player ready…
The Head Start program is a little more than 60 years old now, and it started for all the noble reasons a good federal program should start: To help the most vulnerable members of our society, who had so often been left behind in the past
It is estimated that Head Start has assisted around 40 million low-income children from infants to age 5 in a wide array of ways. It provides, for free, family support and early development programs for the youngest in that group. For those 3 to 5, it is a vital initiative that prepares them for the transition to kindergarten
Head Start has provided daily meals and snacks tailored to children’s specific dietary needs. It offers regular medical, dental and vision screenings. It is credited with helping to develop the social and emotional skills children who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to afford preschool need to succeed in pursuit of a formal education
Studies have shown that children enrolled in a Head Start program are more likely to graduate from college and to live healthier lifestyles. They also show more economic self-sufficiency and are less likely to live in poverty or rely on public assistance programs. The National Head Start Association estimates that every dollar invested into its programs nets at least a $7 return
It’s a good, necessary program in practice that, of course, has some aspects that could be considered somewhat unnecessary and perhaps even a little wasteful
That’s characteristic of every federal government program. The drawbacks, though, don’t come close to negating the positives
Yet, the Trump administration’s proposed changes to Head Start’s quality standards signify a seismic shift in the federal government’s early childhood policy. Requirements on everything from child-to-teacher ratio in classrooms to health requirements to the encouragement of family engagement that are currently covered by more than 100 pages of regulations will, if changes are ultimately approved, be drastically trimmed.
The Trump administration essentially would replace those extensive regulations with about 12 pages of guidelines, passing off most of the specifics and enforcement to state and local law
Taking an axe to Head Start’s federal standards risks a drastic reduction in the program’s quality and results. It also brings questions about whether states that historically have been lax in backing educational opportunities and health standards for underprivileged youngsters with significant funding will ensure the program continues to be successful
In short, we can’t support changes that would likely increase these inequities regionally, because those are issues we’re all going to wind up paying to correct down the road in increased funding for welfare programs
State standards often vary widely, based on factors ranging from the monies they have to spend, to the makeup of the legislatures and governors that make the rules. When you defer a child’s access to quality early education, health checks and teachers who care about their current and future well-being, it boils that child’s access to a positive start in life down to where they live
It is the most random and perhaps unfair of traits to consider. The state or community they live in is out of a child’s control, and exactly the type of thing Head Start was conceived to remove from the health and educational equation
Putting the construction and enforcement of those standards in the hands of local jurisdictions casts these programs into the middle of localized political wars over curriculum, religious indoctrination in public schools and language instruction. It makes it more likely that student-to-teacher ratios rise, because it is more expensive to have more teachers. It increases the likelihood that states will eliminate policies that disproportionately affect minority or disabled students.
Head Start is more than a daycare. Many young parents and children have relied on it and benefitted from it. We recognize that it comes with its fair share of rigidity in rules and administrative red tape
But, as Americans, we must agree the underprivileged deserve the same shot at success as the privileged, and Head Start has at least gotten them an opportunity to close that gap. We should expect more of our federal government when it comes to ensuring that gap continues to close
This is a program the feds have to operate, because early childhood development needs to be a national investment. Lawmakers, advocates and the general public should be vocal during the regulatory comment period with the goal of protecting the benchmarks current Head Start policy provides
The program must extend the same hand up out of poverty, for every child in our country
