Amna Nawaz:
The proposal released today would strip many of the federal requirements currently in place. Launched in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, Head Start today serves 700,000 children ages 3 to 5 and some 160,000 infants and toddlers through what’s known as Early Head Start. There are currently 1,600 Head Start providers across all 50 states.
Joining us now to sort through the proposed changes is New York Times correspondent Coral Davenport.
Good to see you. Thanks for being here.
Coral Davenport, The New York Times:
Sure. Great to be with you.
Amna Nawaz:
So let’s just start. For context, how significant an overhaul would these proposed changes mean for the program?
Coral Davenport:
So early childhood educators say this is the biggest overhaul, the biggest change to the program since its creation in 1965, this kind of — and it’s not — overhaul, it’s not quite right. I mean, it really is essentially an erasure, an elimination of hundreds and hundreds of standards and regulations that sort of govern and dictate the very distinctive and unique requirements that make Head Start different from any other kind of child — childcare or early education or anti-poverty program in the United States.
Amna Nawaz:
It’s moving a lot of those decisions from the federal level to the state level, the administration argues, correct?
Coral Davenport:
It does.
It says that it’s taking away all the requirements that are imposed at the federal level, and the administration says essentially giving control back to the states. And the states can choose what they want to do. If the states want to continue to have some of those rules and regulations, they can do so.
But hundreds, again, hundreds of these rules, requirements to follow them are gone.
Amna Nawaz:
So critics of the program are arguing that the entire program is just not worth the cost. They say these changes are going to be better both for taxpayers and for kids. That’s an argument we heard from someone at The Heritage Foundation. That’s Jonathan Butcher.
Take a listen.
Jonathan Butcher, The Heritage Foundation:
What the Trump administration is trying to do is to deregulate the program, turn responsibility back over to states. The program has failed to meet achievement expectations. It has failed to prepare students in terms of behavior to enter elementary school.
I think at least deregulating the program, making it more cost-effective for taxpayers, and, most importantly, making it more effective for students is exactly the kind of policy agenda that we should be following.
Amna Nawaz:
So let’s just take each of those in turn briefly here.
The program is overseen by Health and Human Services, HHS, we should say. The current federal budget is about $12 billion. Would these changes save costs? Do we know that?
Coral Davenport:
The budget is going to stay the same. The biggest change, the most significant change is going to be eliminating a requirement for small class sizes.
So Head Start has — the federal requirements for class sizes for preschool and childcare are some of the tightest in the country. For example, under Head Start rules, the ratio for a class of 2-year-olds would be one teacher for four 2-year-olds. States have different requirements.
By comparison, the state of Idaho, the requirement is one teacher for nine 2-year-olds, state of Ohio, one teacher for eight 2-year-olds. So the argument is effectively, by lifting these ratios, you get more kids in the classroom. And so you keep the same budget, but you get — the estimate is that they could potentially bring in about 200,000, 250,000 more children into the program just with these higher ratios.
The other side of that potentially is a possible lowering of quality.
Amna Nawaz:
And the other point that was made there about there’s no evidence that the program helped kids to meet the achievement standards, is there evidence behind that?
Coral Davenport:
There’s various studies.
There’s a lot of different studies on Head Start. I think the one that Jonathan Butcher is referring to is there’s one that shows that, by third grade the advantages that Head Start kids gain start to fade out, that essentially they have those advantages, but as they get into the later elementary school years, you can’t really measure the difference.
Amna Nawaz:
You mentioned the concerns over class sizes that could grow. That’s something we heard from the head of the Washington State Association of Head Start, Joel Ryan. Take a listen.
Joel Ryan:
Head Start is not going to serve more kids if you weaken the quality of the program, if you undermine the people in the classroom, because not only are Head Start teachers not paid like they should be, but if you start adding more kids that have significant trauma, that are living in poverty, those teachers are not — they’re not going to stay. They’re going to leave.
Amna Nawaz:
Is that something you’re hearing from other Head Start providers?
Coral Davenport:
That is a huge concern. I talked to teachers, providers, Head Start managers, parents, and I think that that really is the number one concern.
And the point that he made as well that it’s important to remember Head Start is — again, it’s not just a preschool program. It is a poverty — it is an anti-poverty program, and it is designed to serve children who live below the poverty line. So they come into the program a lot of cases with a lot of additional needs.
And so teachers say those requirements that compel them to make sure that kids get medical screenings, dental exams, the teachers actually are — Head Start workers provide visual and hearing screenings in the class. They do at-home visits. So with all of those requirements gone, teachers say they’re really worried that this program just isn’t going to function and it’s going to be harder for them.
Amna Nawaz:
I want to ask you really briefly in the time we have left about a family connection here. We have a photo to prove it. In this photo, that is actually the HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., on the left with his uncle, the late Sargent Shriver, who helped design this program over 60 years ago.
Secretary Kennedy referenced that in a statement today. He said he’s honoring Sargent Shriver’s legacy by, in his words, returning Head Start to the roots, removing unnecessary bureaucracy. How is that resonating among the folks you talk to?
Coral Davenport:
I talked to a lot of Head Start providers who hope that Secretary Kennedy is sincere in wanting to continue the legacy of his uncle in designing this, but they really fear that what this ultimately does is end that legacy.
Amna Nawaz:
And we just want to point out too, for families who rely on the program, we’re still months away from this taking effect. So we will see what happens.
Coral Davenport of The New York Times, thank you so much.
Coral Davenport:
Thanks for having me.
