Washington, D.C. - Head Start, the nation’s premiere early education program for our most vulnerable preschoolers, faces the battle of its life as House Republicans hastily push through the School Readiness Act of 2003 (H.R. 2210). The legislation put forth by the Republican leadership of the House Education and Workforce Committee echoes a plan laid out by the Bush administration earlier this year. The House proposal allows 8 states to replace Head Start with alternative programs that do not require the high quality standards and comprehensive services demanded by Head Start.
We should and can strengthen the educational component of Head Start and require better coordination between Head Start programs and state learning curricula. I was pleased the committee adopted an amendment I offered to do that. But, it makes no sense to strengthen the basic Head Start program and then allow eight states to dodge the quality standards we have established.
Currently, Head Start services include high quality preschool education along with comprehensive supports such as medical, dental, mental health, nutrition and parental involvement components. Head Start is the only federally funded early education program that provides adult literacy and education, workforce training and other support services for low-income families in order to promote stability in a child’s life for the long term. Currently, due to the failure of the government to fully fund Head Start, only 60 percent of all eligible 3- and 4-year-olds participate in the program, and only about 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers can access Early Head Start.
As a former state legislator I understand that states are in the midst of fiscal crisis, and there are many well-meaning policymakers across the country who have the best intentions for the children and families in their states. However, the proposal currently before the House could risk the future of nearly 1 million children in Head Start by diverting funds from local programs, creating a new level of bureaucracy, and leaving states with fewer resources to meet the needs of our poorest children.
For the 912,000 children currently able to access its services, Head Start is a launching pad for a good start in school and in life. But for the estimated 304,000 children still waiting to be helped, it is an opportunity callously denied. If the House Education and Workforce committee had its priorities in order, we would have extended the benefits of this proven program to all of America’s neediest children at a cost of $12.5 billion over five years. Thus the focus for this year’s reauthorization should not be on dismantling a program that has made significant strides for the betterment of low-income children and families over the last 4 decades. It should instead be on fully funding Head Start so that all eligible children are served, as I proposed in my amendment to H.R. 2210, which was rejected by the Committee along party lines.
My district in Maryland has taken on the responsibility of helping the federal government bring Head Start to many children who would otherwise go unserved. Montgomery County counts as eligible families those who earn up to about $30,000, as opposed to the federal poverty guidelines of about $18,000 for a family of four. This means that while the federal government provides $4 million for Head Start, the county provides the balance of the $9.2 million local Head Start budget. Even with this partnership, programs in Montgomery County struggle to meet the needs of low-income families and provide high quality, comprehensive services.
For example, programs are in need of additional funds to implement new regulations put in place to guarantee the safety of children transported by Head Start vehicles. Yet, the Administration’s budget for Head Start barely covers the cost of living increases needed to maintain services at their current level. While there is no questioning the importance of children being transported safely to and from school, there are concerns about how Head Start grantees are going to provide for this with no additional funding. The county relies on these federal dollars to ensure that high quality early education services are available. We should not be discussing a dilution of these funds and services, but an expansion so that this partnership can grow to meet the increasing needs of our community.
If this Congress truly wants to address the problems of poverty, we must seriously look at addressing the issue by nurturing our children, and providing them with tools to achieve, instead of demanding more while offering less. Therefore, unless Head Start is amended to address these issues, I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to “vote no” on H.R. 2210 when it comes to a floor vote. America’s most vulnerable children deserve better.