By Belva Dorsey-Mott, CEO, Enrichment Services Program, Inc.
Recently, the federal administration released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) containing major potential revisions to the Head Start Program Performance Standards.
As CEO of an organization that is funded to serve more than 1,300 Head Start Preschool and Early Head Start children, most of whom live in “child care deserts” in rural Georgia, I believe the best decisions are made by listening to the people closest to the work. Before I make a decision from behind my administrator’s desk, for instance, I always seek input from the ESP team members who experience so many small but meaningful moments in our students’ day-to-day lives.
And so, I’m grateful for the 60-day period in which the public can comment on the contents of the NPRM. Families, educators, and providers should contribute to this discussion. As trusted partners in serving children and families, our stories and data should play a meaningful role in informing the Administration’s decisions regarding proposed changes with Head Start.
I hope the collective voices and experiences shared during the comment period encourage the Administration to reconsider many of the proposed changes. They would eliminate dozens of the unique benefits that have rightly earned Head Start bipartisan support for the past 61 years. They also are unlikely to generate the level of federal savings that the Administration anticipates without severely impacting the quality of services provided.
Reducing Investment Doesn’t Necessarily Save Money
As a Head Start provider, I appreciate that the NPRM was created with the intention of reducing administrative burden and ensuring that government programs operate as efficiently and effectively as possible for children and families.
However, several of these proposed changes would not meaningfully advance those goals and in some cases, could produce unintended consequences. Take, for instance, the proposal to restrict Head Start programs from requiring or incentivizing higher education and credentials for staff. If my organization, ESP, did not employ a credentialed Chief Financial Officer with the expertise to oversee our complex financial operations, we may not have achieved a clean Improper Payments Review with no questioned costs. In fact, without that expertise, we might have incurred questions about costs that could cast doubt on our financial stewardship and raise concerns about waste, fraud, and abuse. Our investment in a highly-qualified financial professional helps ensure that every Head Start dollar is managed responsibly and used to maximize its impact on children and families.
Similarly, the unique services that Head Start provides are also investments with tangible returns. For instance. . .
- If a child is more advanced in early literacy or numeracy, or needs extra help in those areas, Head Start teachers are equipped to create individualized learning plans for them. But if Head Start is forced to raise teacher-child ratios, as proposed in the NPRM, that level of educational quality would be compromised. As a result, students may be less prepared for K-12 school.
- Head Start is also empowered to intervene when it comes to child and family health. We ensure that every student has access to regular medical and dental exams, and track students’ health metrics such as height, weight, and BMI. Given that we’re seeing an increasing number of little ones develop diabetes, this tracking is an essential tool for early intervention, which could mitigate the need for—and expense of—more treatment later. Families and communities depend on the continuation of such wraparound services.
- As a two-generation program, Head Start also supports families’ economic mobility. When little ones are thriving in a quality early learning program, their parents and caregivers have both the time and peace of mind to succeed in the workforce. But one of the proposed changes could cut the Head Start day to as few as three hours. If this change is enacted, countless parents will surely have to drop out of the workforce. The economies of their households and communities will suffer—and their employers will face significant workforce disruptions as well. Incidentally, the workers hurt by this policy would include those of Head Start, which provides hundreds of jobs and generates economic activity in communities across the state.
What Makes Head Start Head Start?
In the early childhood field, we talk about the qualities that have long made Head Start a gold standard for early childhood education. Some seem like extra luxuries that could be easy to shed—until you look closer.
Take the current policy of brushing students’ teeth during their Head Start day. When a parent has to rush out the door to get their baby to school and themselves to work, toothbrushing is one of those tasks that could fall by the wayside. Head Start teachers make sure it doesn’t. The result is healthier teeth, potentially saving families a fortune in painful and costly dental procedures down the road.
We’ve had parents bring a non-verbal child to Head Start and go home with a little chatterbox months later. We’ve seen toddlers become potty trained at school. We’ve seen students with disabilities or delays be connected with the services they need. We’ve watched children develop social-emotional skills through guided play with their peers.
But none of these hallmarks of high-quality education can happen in a classroom with too many children for the teachers to focus on; with children who have trouble learning because they don’t feel well; with families who can’t understand communications because their Head Start programs have suddenly become English-only sites.
So, no, Head Start’s structure and services are not “extras.” They are essential investments in our children and families, our communities and economies.
Not all of the NPRM changes, in my opinion, would hurt Head Start. Eliminating language that is duplicated in both the Head Start Program Performance Standards and the Head Start Act, for example, would streamline the standards.
But many of the other proposed changes would strip Head Start of the comprehensive essentials that have changed the lives of generations of young children and their families.
I hope the Administration will fine-tune their reforms with an advisory committee of Head Start teachers, families, and administrators. We are uniquely able to inform about the art and science behind Head Start’s tremendous success. We can also predict, with evidence, what would be lost if the NPRM’s changes are enacted.
When it comes to Head Start, the goal should be simple—preserve what works, improve what doesn’t, and never lose sight of the children at the center of it all.
Use GEEARS’ Action Alert to urge your members of Congress to protect the core elements of Head Start. Click here.
This is sponsored content.
