On July 25, after a sometimes acrimonious debate, the House passed, 217-216, the School Readiness Act of 2003 (H.R. 2210), which would revamp Head Start. No Democrats supported the bill, and 12 Republicans opposed it, marking the first time in Head Start’s 38-year history that the reauthorization passed without broad bipartisan support.
Sponsored by Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE), H.R. 2210 was approved, on a 27-20 party-line vote, by the House Education and the Workforce Committee on June 12, amid strong objections from Democrats, who took issue with a provision that calls for the creation of a pilot program under which eight states would be allowed to receive block grants to coordinate their state’s early education programs with Head Start (see The Source, 6/13/03). Democrats contended, both in Committee and on the House floor, that the pilot program would hand Head Start over to the states as a block grant without imposing federal standards, and with no mechanism for oversight.
Democrats began the House debate with more than two dozen Members, most of them women, lined up in what Rep. John Mica (R-FL) called a “parade of mediocrity” to say that the bill would eviscerate Head Start. Chief among their complaints was the increased role of states in the administration of the program.
“We bypassed the governors on purpose to keep them from snatching the money,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), herself a former Head Start teacher. “You break my heart.”
Republicans argued that Head Start which often operates with little or no state input is long overdue for modernization.
“These changes are badly needed,” said Education and the Workforce Chair John Boehner (R-OH). “[Under the current law] children are not getting an even start, much less a head start.” He went on to say that the program has been “isolated from change and improvement.”
Between unified Democratic opposition, on-the-fence moderate Republicans who also were apprehensive about the pilot program, and grumbling from a few fiscal conservatives concerned about the bill’s cost, Republican leaders recognized that, as written, the bill was in danger of defeat. Rep. Castle made changes to the bill on July 23 in an effort to solidify the support of Republican moderates. The revisions included requiring states participating in the pilot program to guarantee funding for all Head Start centers through FY2008 all five years of the program’s reauthorization. The bill’s original language required pilot program states to guarantee funding for the first three years.
Rep. Castle also raised the eligibility threshold for states to qualify for the pilot program. A state would be eligible only if, by the end of FY2003, its standards for early childhood education were comparable to those for Head Start. Additionally, Rep. Castle set specific authorization levels for the bill for the next four years, allotting an additional $439 million for the program. The original bill had authorized “such sums as necessary.”
“We have listened to concerned Members, Head Start providers and parents in crafting these improvements to the bill,” said Rep. Castle. “This legislation will strengthen Head Start and truly help these young children by better preparing them for their school years.”
Another controversial provision in the bill would allow Head Start centers operated by religious groups to make hiring decisions based on religious affiliation. Republicans contended that the 1964 Civil Rights Act permits religious organizations to use religious affiliation as a criteria for hiring. Democrats argued that the provision was akin to government-sanctioned and funded religious discrimination.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) offered an amendment that would have removed the faith-based provision from the bill. It was defeated, 199-231.
Education and the Workforce Committee Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) also offered a substitute that would have removed the controversial pilot program and faith-based provisions from the bill. The amendment was rejected, 200-229.
H.R. 2210 faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Democrats also have voiced strong opposition to the pilot program.
