Position of Stand for Children Pittsburgh                  HOME

Head Start must continue its longstanding commitment to addressing children's full range of developmental needs.  Head Start was founded thirty eight years ago on the principal that children cannot learn and prepare for school when they are hungry, sick, or too worried about their home situation to concentrate in school. It has addressed the needs of the whole family and recognized and diagnosed emotional, physical, and educational needs, preparing children for grade school experience, enhancing children's love of learning.

From the time in 1965 when the program was introduced, there have been assaults on this federally funded program. States have wished for more control of these moneys and yet the National quality assurance has made sure that poor children, children of migrant workers, and children on reservations receive the early experience of learning through a federal funding.

The current legislation, HR 2210, a terrible legislation that threatens to dismantle Head Start over time, can only be amended and we are giving you our amendment recommendations.

We must tell you that we deplore the letter sent from Wendy Hill, Federal Official of the Head Start Bureau, conveying a threat of suspension of funds and legal ramifications to parents and staff who advocate against proposed legislation. This is suppression of free speech for the thousands of parents and workers in the Head Start Community: Advocates who were never allowed to be part of the process leading to this bill.

Head Start was not 'broken' but does need enhancement. We are afraid that this is a move to dismantle Head Start as we know it, a program that has been in existence for 38 years.  With the administration taking actions to produce tax cuts and budgets that place the burden on states, states who have

The proposal for to renew Head Start in the House of Representatives (H.R.2210) is very close to the Bush administration?s plan to give control of the program to the states without the proven performance standards or adequate resources to reach more children or enhanced educational services. This gambles with the futures of nearly 1 million vulnerable children who currently participate in Head Start.

This program serves only about 3 out of 5 eligible preschoolers and Early Head Start reaches only about 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers.  At present, many children who qualify for the Women, Infants and Children food program may not qualify for the Head Start program as the Federal Poverty Guidelines are egregiously low. 2003 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia shows income qualifications ranging from a family with one child earning no more than $8,980 to a family with 8 children earning no more than $30,960. We must do more and we must add more children from working poor families to this proven program.

At a time when the state of Pennsylvania, like many other states, is suffering great financial loss, we strongly urge you to reject proposals, such as H.R. 2210, that would give states the option of running the program without stringent federal standards to ensure quality and without adequate new resources to improve Head Start and expand its vital services to reach more eligible children.  Instead, please support significant increases in Head Start funding to move toward serving all eligible children, expand Early Head Start to help our poorest infants and toddlers, and ensure that Head Start teachers have the opportunity and support to obtain Bachelor?s Degrees in early childhood and ongoing training and professional development.

We hope that H.R. 2210 can be strengthened in the coming weeks to further improve Head Start, and to avoid threatening the quality of this vital program through the proposed Title II state option. The future safety of our communities depends on it.

Budget Background: National and State

The actual National deficit will be approximately $600 billion and Congress has just passed a budget calling for a $600 billion deficit each year, every year, for the next 10 years.

Across the country teachers are being laid off, there are more kids per classroom, the school year is shorter, and tuition is up at state colleges. Bus service is being cut off, volunteers are running park systems, prisoners are being released, and subsidies for the working poor are being slashed.

Our state budget is $20.7 billion, a decrease of $86.5 million from last year.

In April The National Conference of State Legislatures said that states must close $75 billion in budget gaps in the next 15 months.

Our Pennsylvania budget gap in April: $736 million. The budget relief for Pennsylvania, a one time only bit of revenue, is $90 million.

All changes will be either added via amendment during the Education Reform Subcommittee's upcoming consideration of the bill, or included in the "chairman's mark" version of the bill that will serve as the base text for committee action.

Letter from Wendy Hill:

Almost simultaneously, a May letter from Wendy Hill, Federal Official responsible for Head Start Bureau, was sent out to thousands of people in the Head Start community, nationwide. It was vague, and, essentially, it said something was done by somebody and not specific. The reference was, in all probability to a one page email sent out by the National Head Start advocacy division, urging staff and parents to discuss the ramifications of the plan by the administration to change Head Start. It urged study and action by those most impacted, the Head Start community and the implications of the Reauthorization bill in it?s present state..

The letter from Wendy Hill is very vague but carries an underlying threat of suspension of funding and legal ramifications. The law that it refers to, the Hatch Act, only applies to political partisanship, but gives an indication of how the administration is trying to shut down any discussion of the proposed legislation. It is a suppression of free speech. The parents are the ones that are the most effected and it is important as the emergency is heightened every day as the Congress marks up this reauthorization bill. Parent involvement, is not a part of the Castle Bill, and the letter from Wendy Hill has had a negative effect on parents. So now there are more parents not coming to participate in legislation. This has effectively closed much of the public debate. The administration did not meet with the Head Start community and did not ask to hear from those at the local level.

On May 22nd, The National Head Start Association filed a  complaint and a motion for an emergency preliminary injunction asking the Federal District Court to take an action against something that is causing your client irreparable injury, the Head Start community.  The procedure will take two or three weeks for a ruling and could not happen at a worse time. The Bill will become law in late summer as is, if there are no significant changes.

Recommendations to be given to Congressman Doyle:

I. H.R. 2210 Provisions that Would Improve Head Start

We appreciate the heightened emphasis throughout H.R. 2210 on academic preparation for school, which is critical to later educational success and crime prevention. We applaud the bill's requirement that 50% of Head Start teachers have a bachelor's degree related to early childhood education within five years and that, within three years, all new teachers have (or be making progress towards) an associate's degree related to early childhood education (Section 112 of the bill, amending Section 648A of the Act).

The bill's sponsors rightly recognize that greater teacher qualifications must be linked to increased investments in teacher compensation, scholarships, etc., as is evident through the expanded quality set-aside Ð 60% of any new funds (Section 104 of the bill, amending Section 640(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Act).

We are also pleased with the new requirement for coordinated outreach to identify eligible children (Section 104 of the bill, amending Section 640(a)(5)(B) of the Act).

In addition, we appreciate the new "social development" quality performance standard (Section 106 of the bill, amending Section 641A of the Act), since progress in Head Start's academic quality must be accompanied by advances (and not weakening) in the social, emotional, and behavioral elements which are also essential for its long-term education and crime-reduction impacts. We note, however, that this new standard is too narrowly drafted (see recommendation below, III C).

II. The State Option Proposal in H.R. 2210 Would Weaken Head Start

While the provisions discussed above are positive, they would be rendered meaningless for many - if not all - Head Start students if the state option proposal (Title II) were enacted. The new Title II state option proposal, with criteria so broad as to enable any state to qualify (see proposed new Section 643A(a)(2) in Title II), threatens the quality of early education services and Head Start's income-targeting, as well as the continuation of Early Head Start's critical services.

A. Quality: Research shows that quality is crucial in achieving both educational and crime-reduction outcomes. Research also shows that the quality of state-funded early education and care programs is extremely mixed. In fact, the only states that at least match Head Start's quality in all areas are the three states that have chosen to adopt Head Start performance standards. Other states fall behind Head Start quality in critical areas. For example, Yale University researchers have found that only one state that has not adopted the Head Start performance standards offers a full range of parent involvement activities, including parent education. We know from other research that such parent coaching is a critical element of programs (such as the Chicago Child Parent Centers) that are the most effective in preparing children for school and for life.

Title II of H.R. 2210 would greatly undermine Head Start quality because:

1. It eliminates the Head Start quality standards for any state that chooses to administer the Head Start program. Thus it not only makes the new quality enhancements in Title I of the bill inapplicable to these states, but eliminates the current quality guarantees.

2. States participating in Title II could use quality improvement funds for any Head Start related purpose - not just for the improvement of quality (see proposed new section 643A(e)(5) of the Act, in Title II of the bill).

3. There are no meaningful requirements for review of state plans. In fact, state plans are "deemed approved" under new Section 643A(l) if the Secretary fails to act. In addition, the lack of substantial oversight over Head Start programs under Title II in the new section 643A(m) makes high quality Head Start programs even less likely.

The inapplicability of Head Start standards, coupled with the diffusion of quality improvement funds and the lack of real oversight is especially troubling at a time when cash-strapped states are already cutting their own funds for early education and care.

B. Income Targeting: The Title II state option threatens the income targeting of Head Start, which has been a hallmark of the program since its inception. Any future Secretary could, through regulations, allow the states to determine eligibility without regard to poverty (on which eligibility for Head Start has always been based). Targeting Head Start toward poor children is critical to serving those most at-risk of later school failure and later crime and violence. Any expansion to less needy children must not come at the expense of meeting the needs of poor children.

C. Early Head Start: Title II would also threaten to reduce access to Early Head Start, which is already serving less than 5% of those eligible, despite recent brain research showing the critical importance of those first three years in a child's development, and other research showing that children entering Head Start lag far behind their more advantaged peers in many areas. While the proposal requires that states choosing to administer Early Head Start programs meet the requirements for Early Head Start (under section 645A), it does not require that all of the Early Head Start funds be used to serve only infants and toddlers (see proposed new section 643A(e)(5) of the Act, in Title II of the bill). While most states lack early education and care systems that can serve large numbers of three and four-year-olds, even fewer have such systems for infants and toddlers. Thus the possibility that states would use Early Head Start funds for programs for 3- and 4-year-olds is a significant risk. Early Head Start should be expanded, not reduced (see attached recommendations).

We therefore urge you to oppose the Title II state option proposal and to instead strengthen coordination between Head Start and other early education and care programs in ways less hazardous to quality, targeting, and zero-to-three programs (see page 6 of attached previous letter of recommendations).

III. Other Concerns Regarding H.R. 2210

A. Funding: We are also concerned that, without substantially increased resources, the critical improvements that are included in Title I of this bill will not be possible. We were very pleased to see that the bill includes an increase in the quality set-aside to 60% of any increased appropriations. However, the authorization of funds in this bill (under Section 103, amending Section 639 of the Act) is insufficient to make the improvements necessary. An increase of $200 million will do little more than adjust for inflation. We therefore urge you to increase the funding by substantially more than the $200 million provided in H.R. 2210 to both increase quality and meet the needs of more eligible children (as indicated on page 2 of attached recommendations).

B. Set-aside for Training and Technical Assistance: Further, we are very disappointed in the elimination of the requirement that at least 2% of funds be set aside for training and technical assistance (Section 640(a)(2)(C) as amended by the bill). Such training and technical assistance is key to improving the skills of current Head Start teachers. Moreover, new research about how to best prepare young children for school and for life is constantly being produced, and funds for training and technical assistance are critical to ensuring that research findings are implemented in the field on an ongoing basis. We therefore urge you to maintain the requirement that at least 2% of Head Start funds be reserved for training and technical assistance.

C. Parent Coaching and Social/Emotional/Behavioral Elements: The bill does not increase Head Start's emphasis on parent coaching, and, while providing a new program standard on social development, does not emphasize the importance of a broad range of social, emotional and behavioral elements. Comprehensive social and emotional development is threatened through such measures as narrowly defining the purpose of social development as that which is "important for environments constructive for child development, early learning, and school success" (under Sections 106 and 643A(g)(1)(C)). This language implies that Head Start should take only those steps necessary to keep kids quiet and in their seats during lessons. A broader approach to social, emotional, and behavioral development is needed to maximize both long-term education and crime-reduction results. We urge you to strengthen parent coaching and social/emotional/behavioral aspects of the program (see attached recommendations), and provide a broader description of social development.

D. Assessments: As you know, the Administration has proposed implementing academically focused assessments in Head Start classrooms. While we applaud this greater emphasis on accountability and on academic skills, we are concerned that narrowly focused assessments could be detrimental to Head Start children, especially before further research has been done. Experts in the field of early childhood development have not yet developed a scientifically based, comprehensive assessment approach that would be appropriate for widespread use in Head Start programs. Therefore, while we are pleased that H.R. 2210 does not include any new assessment requirements, we are disappointed that the bill fails to provide for the investigation into the development of such comprehensive assessments. We therefore urge you to provide for such investigation into a system of comprehensive, developmentally appropriate assessments through the National Academy of Sciences (see attached recommendations).

In conclusion, we appreciate the hard work of Rep. Castle and Rep. Boehner, and the positive steps that they have taken towards improving Head Start in Title I of this bill. However, Title II of this bill would not only render those improvements inapplicable to many or even most Head Start programs, but would seriously undermine current quality standards.

We hope that H.R. 2210 can be strengthened in the coming weeks to further improve Head Start, and to avoid threatening the quality of this vital program through the proposed Title II state option. The future safety of our communities depends on it.

Date: April 15, 1996    Contacts: Molly Galvin, Media Relations Associate    Justin Lin, Media Relations Assistant    (202) 334-2138; Internet <news@nas.edu> Publication Announcement HEAD START RESEARCH SHOULD ADDRESS CHANGING CONDITIONS OF POOR FAMILIES    Conditions of poverty have changed in the 30 years since the inception of   Head Start, the nation's comprehensive preschool program for disadvantaged   children and families. Single parents and shifting family structures are   replacing the two-parent, one-household configuration that was standard in   1965, when the program was created. Violence at home and in communities,   substance abuse, serious mental illness, and homelessness have increased.   Today's poor families have highly diverse ethnic, linguistic, and immigrant backgrounds.   They also have uneven education and employment histories.    A new report by the Board on Children, Youth, and Families of the National   Research Council and the Institute of Medicine identifies new lines of   research that are needed to provide a clearer picture of Head Start and its   relation to families and their circumstances. The report, based on a series   of workshops held by the board's Roundtable on Head Start Research, says that   research initiatives are needed to:    > Investigate the diversity of cultures and languages represented by   families enrolled in Head Start, the mix of languages and instructional   practices in the classroom, and parents' educational and cultural   backgrounds. Studies indicate that 20 percent of Head Start children speak a language   other than English. Between 1990 and 2010, children of immigrants are   expected to account for half of the growth in the school-age population.    > Obtain an accurate picture of parents' employment status and child-care   needs. As welfare reform at the state level affects more Head Start families,   the program will be under pressure not only to provide child care but also to   help parents prepare for and maintain employment. Research indicates that in   more than one-third of participating families, at least one parent works full   time. However, one study revealed that just 6.5 percent of Head Start   children receive full-day care. The costs and benefits of providing services   for a full day should be assessed. Many employees of Head Start are former   participants in the program, and several sites provide extensive parent   literacy and job-training initiatives. The effects of Head Start programs on   parents' employment opportunities also should be measured.    > Document the prevalence and degree to which Head Start children and   staff are exposed to domestic and community violence. The effects of violence   on the ability of parents and staff to care for children also should be   addressed. Head Start serves a growing number of children who are exposed to   violence, but research on the issue is just beginning. Some communities with   high degrees of violence have trouble recruiting teachers. Better   understanding is needed of parent and staff perceptions of Head Start's role   in violence intervention. An experimental project at Head Start sites could,   for example, explore staff training strategies and how children cope with   violence.    > Examine Head Start's impact on other specialized community services and   institutions, and ways in which they help or hinder the program's efforts to   improve family well-being. In many communities, resources and services for   the poor have become more scarce. For example, recent research revealed that   about a quarter of Head Start programs had difficulty getting help from local   health professionals.    The Administration for Children, Youth, and Families of the U.S. Department   of Health and Human Services funded the study. The National Research Council   is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the   National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, non-profit institution that   provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. The   Institute of Medicine is a private, non-profit organization that provides   health policy advice under the same charter. A roster follows.    Copies of Beyond   the Blueprint: Directions for Head Start Researchare available   from the National Academy Press for $17.00 plus shipping charges of $4.00 for   the first copy and $.50 for each additional copy; tel. (202) 334-3313 or   1-800-624-6242. Reporters may obtain copies from the Office of News and   Public Information at the letterhead address (contacts listed above).

# # #

[Internet availability: This news release is available on the World Wide Web   at <http://www.nas.edu>; via Gopher at   <gopher.nas.edu>; and via FTP at <ftp.nas.edu/pub/>.]

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE    Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education    Board on Children, Youth, and Families Roundtable on Head Start Research

Sheldon H. White (chair)    Professor, Department of Psychology    Harvard University    Cambridge, Mass. Duane Alexander    Director    National Institute of Child Health and Human Development    National Institutes of Health    Bethesda, Md. W. Steven Barnett    Associate Professor of Economics and Policy    Graduate School of Education    Rutgers University    New Brunswick, N.J. Donna Bryant    Director, Family and Child Care Research Program    Frank Porter Graham Development Center    University of North Carolina    Chapel Hill Carole Clarke    Program Director of Migrant Head Start    Center for Education and Manpower Resources    Ukiah, Calif. Thomas Cook    Professor, Center for Urban Affairs    Northwestern University    Evanston, Ill. Claudia Coulton    Director, Center for Urban Poverty and Social Change    Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences    Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Willie Epps    Director    Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville    East St. Louis Linda Espinosa    Vice President    Bright Horizons    Cambridge, Mass. Eugene Garcia    Dean    Graduate School of Education    University of California, Berkeley Claude Goldenberg    Associate Professor    Department of Teacher Education    California State University    Long Beach Noreen Goldman    Professor    Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs    Princeton University    Princeton, N.J. Fernando Guerra    Director of Health    San Antonio Metropolitan Health District    San Antonio Jane Knitzer    Consultant    National Center for Children in Poverty    New York City Ronald Lally    Director, Center for Child and Family Studies    Far West Laboratory    Sausalito, Calif. Eleanor Maccoby (1), (2)    Barbara Kimball Browning Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology    Stanford University    Stanford, Calif. Martha Moorehouse    Senior Research Policy Analyst    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services    Washington, D.C. Gregg Powell    Director of Research and Evaluation    National Head Start Association    Alexandria, Va. Suzanne Randolph    Assistant Professor, Department of Family Studies    University of Maryland, College Park Jack P. Shonkoff    Dean    Heller Graduate School    Brandeis University    Waltham, Mass. Helen Taylor    Associate Commissioner    Head Start Bureau    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services    Washington, D.C. Valora Washington    Vice President of Programs    W.K. Kellogg Foundation    Battle Creek, Mich. Heather Weiss    Director, Harvard Family Research Project    Graduate School of Education    Harvard University    Cambridge, Mass. Constance Williams    Associate Professor    Heller Graduate School    Brandeis University    Waltham, Mass. Edward Zigler (2)    Professor, Department of Psychology    Yale University    New Haven, Conn. STAFF Deborah Phillips, Director    Board of Children, Youth, and Families Natasha Cabrera, Study Director    (1) Member, National Academy of Sciences    (2) Member, Institute of Medicine