Given that I have already invested many hours in researching Head Start and the Bush administration’s proposed changes, I feel compelled to share some of what I have learned. What follow will be a series of posts giving more background, analysis, and suggestions for further reading. Before I begin I want to make a plea. I know this issue is not as black and white or sexy as most of what folks are discussing on-line and around watercoolers. But it is so important. In some ways more important than the issues currently crowding the headlines. There is no doubt in my mind that the only lasting and truly revolutionary way to change the course of human history is by investing in children. It is the most important challenge we face; and unfortunately it is one that, globally, we are failing.

Head Start serves nearly one million children under the age of 5 each year. And that is still only 60% of the children who are eligible for those services. Who are the children that Head Start serves? Children whose families are at or below the federal poverty line. From the National Center for Children in Poverty: 

The federal poverty level for a two-parent family of four (in 2001) is $17,960.  16% of American children—almost 12 million—live in poverty, meaning their parents' income is at or below the federal poverty level. This is about the same number of children who lived in poverty in 1980.

7% of American children—5 million—live in extreme poverty. This is a 17% increase from 2000. The parents of these children make half the federal poverty level, or $8,980 for a family of four.

Research shows that, in most areas of the United States, it takes roughly double the federal poverty level to provide a family with the basic necessities of life like food and housing.

Head Start costs the federal government just under $7 billion/year. And the pay-off in investing in children can be measured in dollars. From the Children’s Defense Fund:

Early childhood programs can result in significant cost savings in both the short and long-term. For example, a study of the long-term impact of a good early childhood program for low-income children found that after 27 years, each $1.00 invested saved over $7.00 by increasing the likelihood that children would be literate, employed, and enrolled in postsecondary education, and making them less likely to be school dropouts, dependent on welfare, or arrested for criminal activity or delinquency. A study of the short-term impact of the Colorado prekindergarten program found that it resulted in cost savings of $4.7 million over just three years in reduced special education costs.

So, after spending hours and hours on-line reading this is what I think:

(1) The School Readiness Act of 2003 [HR 2210] as passed by the House on Friday is not a death knell for the program, but it is a step in the wrong direction.

(2) Head Start programs are successful – and even diehard supporters say that there is room for improvement.

(3) HR2210 does not address the areas where the biggest improvement to Head Start could be leveraged – the need for better trained, more qualified teachers. While calling for more qualified teachers, the bill does not authorize the funds needed to hire and retain them. [See  “Battle over head start – what the research shows”  in which a study of 104 child care centers in Boston, Central Virginia, and Atlanta found that classroom quality was most strongly associated with teacher wages;  and the “Low Wages = Low Quality: Solving the Real Preschool Teacher Crisis,” policy brief by NIEER]

(4) The house bill, as passed, weakens Head Start by insufficiently funding it and allowing for the erosion of national quality standards. From the Center for Law and Social Policy:

Several of the bill’s provisions are positive, including the emphasis on teacher credentialing and the enhanced collaboration requirements. However, 

• The bill establishes a set of significant new goals for Head Start programs without providing the funding that would be needed to meet the goals;

• The bill reduces the federal commitment to training and technical assistance, a key part of any strategy to improving program quality;

• The bill would allow religious discrimination by faith-based providers receiving Head Start

• The bill would give eight states the option to receive Head Start funds in the form of a block grant without full application of the current Head Start Performance Standards, adequate accountability, or sufficient coordination requirements.

For a more comprehensive summary of the ways that HR 2210 weakens Head Start, please see the joint statement of the Children's Defense Fund, United Way of America, National League of Cities, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), National Women's Law Center, Child Welfare League of America, Easter Seals, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, National Council of Jewish Women, and the National Head Start Association.  Please read this.  It’s very clear and specific and I would post it here but this entry is already ridiculously long.

Believe it or not, I have more sources and background info to come… In the interim, you can take action now to ensure that the Senate’s version of the bill corrects these deficiencies.

1:35:45 AM