Delaney: How can we say we are giving communities more power while simultaneously weakening one of the best outlets for quality early education?
This story first appeared at The 74, a nonprofit news site covering education. Sign up for free newsletters from The 74 to get more like this in your inbox.
I am a product of Head Start.
Before I understood federal funding, program performance standards or the complicated systems that make Head Start possible, I understood what it meant to be a Head Start child.
Years later, I returned, first as a center director and later as a regional director of a Head Start program in Fort Worth, Texas. I have experienced it from both sides: as a child who benefited from the program and as a leader responsible for ensuring other children and families received the same opportunity.
So, when the current administration says its proposed reforms will strengthen Head Start’s core mission by giving local communities greater flexibility, I have a perspective that is both deeply personal and professional. Let me tell you why I know I’m opposed to the changes outlined earlier this month.
More Than Early Education
Head Start’s core mission has never simply been about putting more children in classrooms. The program was built on the understanding that a child’s ability to learn is connected to everything happening in that child’s life. That is why the program has always been more than early education.
Head Start recognizes that supporting a child often means supporting the entire family, so the program offers a number of wraparound services to support families in helping their children thrive. From connecting parents with healthcare, dental care and mental health resources when needed, to providing nutritious meals for children, it’s about working alongside parents in partnership.
The proposed changes would dramatically reduce the federal standards that have helped define what families can expect from a Head Start program.
Related Reading
Head Start’s Antipoverty Mission Threatened by Trump Administration Overhaul
What the Proposed Reforms Would Cut
For decades, Head Start has operated with clear expectations around the comprehensive needs of children. Under this proposal, many of those expectations would no longer be spelled out in the performance standards. Programs would have significantly fewer federal requirements governing how they address healthcare and developmental needs.
As someone who attended Head Start, I have some of my earliest memories of being cared for in a safe environment by trusted educators and receiving healthy meals each day. For some families with limited resources, knowing their children would receive two nutritious meals and a snack helps ease the burden of choosing between keeping the lights on and providing healthy meals. The program also gives parents the opportunity to work while knowing their children are safe, cared for and learning. For my family, Head Start was not simply a place for me to go during the day. It was a support for our entire family.
What This Looks Like in Practice
As someone who has led a Head Start program, I know what these actions look like in practice. It looks like a teacher noticing something about a child and knowing there is a system for responding to the issue. It looks like a family services worker helping a parent navigate resources they may not have known existed. It looks like identifying a concern early enough to intervene. It looks like following up instead of simply handing a parent a referral and hoping for the best.
Sometimes, Head Start is the first system that truly sees a family. That visibility and acknowledgment can change the trajectory of a child or a family’s life.
Sometimes, Head Start is the first system that truly sees a family.
The proposed rule would also move away from many of Head Start’s existing expectations for curriculum, teacher development, coaching, classroom size and teacher-child ratios, to rely more heavily on state childcare requirements.
I have managed Head Start centers and also worked as a preschool teacher. I know what happens when you increase the number of children in a classroom without increasing the number of adults responsible for their care. Someone pays the price. It may be a decrease in the individual attention a child receives, a delay in the teacher’s recognition of a developmental concern or less time available to build relationships with families. Removing any of these standards will have a domino effect.
Every Child Deserves This Standard
I struggle to understand how we can say we are giving communities more power while simultaneously weakening one of the clearest structures through which quality early education exists.
Children growing up in low-income families do not deserve a lesser standard of early childhood education because it is cheaper to administer. They deserve high-quality classrooms. They deserve teachers who have the capacity to see them. They deserve safe environments. They deserve access to support when they need it. Their parents deserve a voice, and their families deserve to be treated as partners. That is what makes Head Start so successful. That is what contributed to my success.
For generations, Head Start has represented creating opportunity by investing in the whole child and strengthening the entire family, and we cannot strengthen that mission by stripping away the very things that made it powerful.
I am a product of Head Start, and Head Start did not change my life by doing less.
I am a product of Head Start, and Head Start did not change my life by doing less.
comments +