Education

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Education Archives page.

What Should Head Start Start?

Head Start is a program that serves children up to age 5 as well as pregnant women and their families. The program aids young children in healthy child development and school readiness by providing education; medical, dental and mental health services; nutrition information; and parent education.

There has been a long standing debate about which of the goals of Head Start should be the main goal. Should it emphasize the physical and social development of children in low income, high stress conditions, or should it be an academically oriented early reading and learning program? There is a debate on what it means to be ready for school. This debate mirrors the long-standing one among parents and teachers: what is readiness and can children’s intellectual development be speeded up with early learning? Is child development something that just happens naturally or can it be encouraged?

Various studies show that providing for poor children is an investment; one such study indicates that for every dollar spent on Head Start, taxpayers save $4-$7 later on.

The Bush administration would like to see improvements in the Head Start program, namely, better teacher training aimed at reading readiness and less emphasis on socializing the child and other services. This matches the Bush education plan which is targeted to “getting results", that is, testing children and holding teachers and schools accountable for test scores in reading and math. This is a shift in philosophy and practice for Head Start and requires better academically trained teachers and more academically focused programs for the children.

Federal policy and state control.

There are two purposes to this bill. One is to change the direction of Head Start. The other is to enlarge the power of states. States provide 93% of education funding and, under the Constitution, hold primary responsibility. But in an increasingly mobile society (certainly compared to the time of the founding of the nation), should there be national standards? Can they be enforced if each state runs its own version of pre-school?

Currently, there is a bill in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce that proposes changes to Head Start. One of the provisions of that bill has been under intense debate and was re-written on June 10, 2003 to appease the opposition. It involves an old Republican/Democrat difference in philosophy. Republicans, especially Reagan and Bush Republicans, believe in federalism (the “ism" is the key, it means the power of the states as opposed to national or federal government).

The original version of this provision permitted states to take over Head Start programs, which are now under federal control. The administration feels that increasing state control will improve services since states already play a vital role in conducting preschool programs. The undercurrent of this argument is that many states will not carry out the long history of Head Start, since many states are just beginning to require all day Kindergarten, much less pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds.

Critics of the President’s proposal say that giving the program over to states will not necessarily result in higher quality services and better academic performance. They see no clear and direct relationship between state control and improved services. In fact, opponents say, the opposite is likely; if states can run the program however they want, program quality will surely go down in some states.

The Bush administration promises federal guidelines that states must follow. For example, state programs must serve as many eligible three and four-year-olds as did the federal program. States must also explain how they work with public schools to develop the skills and behaviors that children must possess to perform well in kindergarten. This reinforces the Bush attention to testing as proof that a program works.

Opponents question Bush’s federal guidelines: If the bill protects three and four year-olds, what about infants and pregnant mothers? What is the value of a Head Start program patterning itself after a state public school system, if that system happens to be substandard?

Head Start lobbyists are successful

Head Start advocates claim that Bush’s proposal is a plan to dismantle the program completely. They say that giving the program over to states will weaken the program and that there is not enough evidence to change the program so drastically. This is an example of what public protest and lobbying can do.

Michael Castle, the Delaware Republican who sponsored the legislation, has responded to lobbyists by rewriting the provision that has received the most criticism.

The new provision will allow only eight states to take over their Head Start programs, instead of transferring all programs to state control. So, instead of allowing a massive shift from federal to state, the provision now sets up a demonstration project that will allow legislators to better understand the impact of such a drastic change on the Head Start program.

Posted on: 6/14/2003

return to top

"If it ain’t broke..." Many oppose to changing Head Start

Although the proposed pilot program would only affect eight states, opponents say that that is eight states too many.

Many Head-Start advocates responded with disdain to President Bush’s speech on Monday, July 7, 2003. They claim that his changes to Head Start will stop Head Start.

In his first public address on the topic, Bush focused on the benefit of academic standards for youngsters. He said that although the tests would not be as rigorous as they are for older students, toddlers’ achievement can still be tested and measured.

Directors of Head Start don’t want to change the focus of the program from health and nutrition to academic achievement, and they are increasingly concerned about the block grants that would fund the program.

Instead of federal money going directly to Head Start programs, states would receive a chunk of change that they would then allot to Head Start.

Some say that making the state the middle-man is a bad idea because the state may spend the funds on other things in a budget crisis.

In his speech, Bush promised that this would not happen; he claims that the funds for Head Start will be protected and that toddlers and their families will see the money.

Eight States

States would volunteer for the pilot program, and must have state-funded preschool programs already in place in order to qualify.

It is unclear why a state would volunteer to alter its Head Start programs. States that want to show their support for the president, states that want control over Head Start funds, and/or states that want to change their preschool programs may volunteer for the program.

Update Posted on: 7/9/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top