On July 22, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing on the School Readiness Act of 2003 (H.R. 2210), which would reauthorize Head Start. The panel heard from experts in early childhood education on how to close the readiness gap between Head Start graduates and their more affluent counterparts, who are entering kindergarten better prepared to learn. H.R. 2210 would give states more control over their individual Head Start programs and would authorize $202 million in new funding for FY2004, bringing the total funding to $7 billion.
Committee Chair Judd Gregg (R-NH) opened the hearing by saying that he did not wish to “reinvent the wheel” with regard to the Head Start program. “There needs to be a building upon what is I think a very strong foundation in the program. That building should be focused primarily upon a more aggressive approach in the area of academic achievement giving these kids a better chance of succeeding when they get to the first grade. … In addition to strengthening the academic component, I think we also need to look at some accountability, to make sure that we have Head Start programs that are accomplishing what we desire that they accomplish. … I think we have a very strong product to work from in the present Head Start program. But I think there are ways to make it a better program for the children who are participating in it.”
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 noted that the committee vote marked the first time in Head Start’s 38-year history that the program would be reauthorized without broad bipartisan support. In arguing against the bill, Democrats contended that the pilot program would hand Head Start over to the states without imposing federal standards, and with no mechanism for oversight. Republicans argued that Head Start which often operates with little or no state input is long overdue for modernization.
Senate Committee Democrats raised the same objections to the pilot program.
“Programs for children are, in the states, used as piggybanks for other programs, and they do not provide the basis for a sustained commitment,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). “There is an enormous amount of not only suspicion, but evidence and experience, which many of us who have worked on these issues for a long time bring to this debate. … With all due respect, the administration is coming to us and essentially raising suspicions in many of our minds that the real agenda is to eventually block grant this important program, turn it over to the states, which have a mixed record, at best. … We are looking at the unraveling of a federal commitment.”
Windy Hill, Associate Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau and herself both a former Head Start student and parent addressed the block grant concerns.
“Neither the president, nor the House is proposing to block grant Head Start funding to the states. In fact, Head Start will continue to be managed as a federal-to-local program,” said Ms. Hill. “No state will be required to take advantage of this opportunity nor is anyone proposing that Head Start be turned over to states with no strings attached. Neither the president nor the House proposal allows states to do away with the comprehensive services currently available through Head Start.”
Janice Santos of the Holyoke-Chicope-Springfield Head Start Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, told the panel of her organization’s opposition to the pilot program.
“It is not apparent to us how shifting Head Start to a block grant program to even eight states—without the full application of the program performance standards and without adequate accountability or sufficient coordination requirements—will do anything to improve the quality of Head Start. Instead, such a shift likely will result in chaos for the immediate future as cash-strapped states figure out how to use the funds,” Ms. Santos said. “At the same time, sending Head Start dollars to the states will most assuredly lead to a dilution of the quality of Head Start. While bipartisan Congresses have sought to strengthen the program’s performance standards and enhance monitoring requirements, the administration’s plan would instead rely on the good will of debt-ridden states to ensure quality.”
Sen. Clinton agreed. “We’ve been fighting this battle a long time. If the states really wanted to do this they would have done it. Head Start started because we knew that in the absence of a federal commitment to poor children, there would be very few states that would provide the services that these children deserve to have.”
Ms. Hill countered that a lack of adequate coordination between Head Start and state-administered programs is undermining the program’s ability to provide services to needy children. “Where coordination is not currently occurring,” said Ms. Hill, “we are finding large gaps and patchy areas in our safety net, to the detriment of young children and families. … Both the president’s plan and the House bill make clear that the federal government will not cease or relinquish its oversight responsibilities for the Head Start program. Under the president’s proposal, states who choose this option and who have their plans approved will still be accountable to the federal government for their use of Head Start funds.”
Ms. Hill went on to say that states that are not approved for the pilot program would continue to have their Head Start programs administered as a direct federal-to-local program.
H.R. 2210 also includes a provision that would require that half of all Head Start teachers earn a bachelor’s degree by 2008, and would require that no new teachers without an associate’s degree be hired three years after the bill’s enactment (see The Source, 6/6/03). Amy Wilkins of the Trust for Early Education praised the language, but testified that it needs to go further. She urged the committee to require Head Start teachers have bachelor’s degrees with specialized training in early education within eight years.
“The House’s action on this issue, while significant and laudable, is limited. If, as a national average, only half of the teachers in Head Start are required to have bachelor’s degrees, it is very possible that not a single state represented on this committee would see any improvement in the number of teachers with bachelor’s degrees.”
Ms. Wilkins called for adjustment of salary scales to reflect the higher education standards. “If we require that Head Start teachers have bachelor’s degrees and specialized training in early education, we will be requiring that they meet essentially the same requirements that most states have established for their kindergarten teachers. As it currently stands, Head Start teachers with bachelor’s degrees earn only half as much as public school kindergarten teachers. Without improved wages, Head Start teachers with bachelor’s degrees will not stay in Head Start programs,” she said.
