Sacramento Head Start Alumni Association

Head Start: A Formula for Success Threatened by Bush Experiment

Mar 11, 2003

February 12, 2003



Head Start: A Formula for Success with Disadvantaged Children Threatened by Bush Experiment


Head Start is unique in its comprehensive approach to supporting children and families by offering early education, health care, social services, and nutrition services while emphasizing parent involvement and support and building upon the strengths of local communities. This approach has been a formula for success for decades. Head Start works and should be expanded?—not diluted?—and fully funded with continued efforts to further strengthen its quality.

The Bush administration proposal for Head Start is a radical experiment performed on disadvantaged children. While it provides a bare minimum budget increase for Head Start, the Administration proposes to shift away from Head Start?’s comprehensive approach. Such changes would gamble the futures of the nearly 1 million children who currently participate in Head Start. The proposal would move the program from one that provides federal grants directly to community organizations to a state-controlled program and eliminate the performance standards that are the core of the program?’s success. Responsibility for the program would also shift from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the U.S. Department of Education.

Head Start is working, so there is no need to drastically alter it. According to a recent study, Head Start narrows the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers in vocabulary and writing skills during the program year. Once in kindergarten, Head Start graduates continue to make substantial progress in word knowledge, letter recognition, math skills, and writing skills. Other studies have shown that Head Start children are less likely to be placed in special education or held back a grade.

States are grappling with huge budget deficits that are already placing their existing state prekindergarten programs at risk. States will be tempted to use Head Start dollars to fill in gaps in their own programs and spread dollars more thinly. As it is, states?’ commitment to early education is relatively limited compared to the federal investment. While 45 states invest in state prekindergarten, they spend just over $2 billion compared to the $6.54 billion spent by the federal government on Head Start.

States are already struggling to meet the enormous demands of the new Bush administration education reform act without adequate resources. They may be tempted to focus their early education programs on narrow academic measures that do not truly represent what children need in order to enter school ready to learn.

Head Start must continue its longstanding commitment to addressing children?’s cognitive, social, emotional, and physical needs. Head Start was founded on the principle that children cannot learn when they are hungry, or sick, or too worried about their home situation to concentrate in school. Research demonstrates that all areas of children?’s development are intertwined. Yet, most state prekindergarten initiatives do not provide the comprehensive services that are the hallmark of Head Start. With no new resources, states will likely water down the Head Start services currently available to young children.

States do not have Head Start?’s extensive experience in working with parents. Head Start emphasizes parent involvement, recognizing that this is crucial to their children?’s success in school, and supports low-income parents as they try to become self-sufficient. In contrast, most state initiatives do not focus on parent involvement or family support.
Shifting responsibility would remove essential quality guarantees, including extensive performance standards and regular, on-site monitoring. A study found that the average quality rating of Head Start programs was higher than that of other early care and education programs. Without national performance standards, there would be no guarantees that this quality would be maintained. States have not demonstrated a commitment to strong standards. Thirty states allow teachers in child care centers to begin working without receiving any training in early childhood development. Twenty-one states with prekindergarten initiatives either do not require any monitoring or only require written reports without on-site visits.