The Delta Issue #111

We Can Protect Head Start—and Still Make It Better

Hi y’all, Jessica here.

Head Start has been in the news a lot over the past several months.

On one side, the Trump administration is proposing sweeping changes that it says will reduce federal regulation and give states and communities more flexibility. Some of that instinct makes sense to me, and there is a version of Head Start reform that I could enthusiastically support.

This proposal isn’t it. Instead, it would make Head Start harder to access for some of our most vulnerable families while adding federal mandates, like English-only instruction, that hardly scream “local control.”

On the other side, advocates are fighting hard against those changes—and they have good reason to be worried about access. Head Start is one of the most important investments our country makes in children living in poverty, and remains landmark legislation long after it was passed. We should absolutely defend Head Start from changes that would hurt kids and families. But defending Head Start from harmful changes shouldn’t mean defending everything about the way the program works today.

We’ve talked before about how our early childhood system is a system that’s not really a system. Head Start is a big part of that problem. Its funding largely leapfrogs states and goes directly from the federal government to local grantees, making it incredibly hard to stitch Head Start into everything else states are doing for young kids.

States are trying to bring pre-K, child care, early learning, and other programs together around one vision for kids and families, but they’re doing it across different funding streams, rules, and governance structures. Bringing Head Start into the fold is one step toward solving that bigger governance problem across early childhood.

Much has changed in early childhood since Head Start was created more than sixty years ago. Protecting what makes Head Start so important shouldn’t mean pretending we haven’t learned anything in the intervening decades.

There’s another path between bad federal policy and a sixty-year-old status quo. Here’s what I think it looks like.

1️⃣ Protect the money, and its purpose.

Let’s start with the non-negotiable: Head Start funding should remain dedicated to serving our lowest-income and most vulnerable children.

Some of the changes coming out of Washington deserve serious opposition because they undercut what Head Start is supposed to do for kids and families. Reducing the floor for Head Start to three hours of care makes zero sense. For what working family is three hours of child care actually useful?

The proposed eligibility changes are just as concerning. Removing certain housing expenses from income calculations could mean a family struggling to keep a roof over its head suddenly looks less poor on paper. And tying a child’s eligibility to their parent’s immigration status could keep children out of Head Start because of a decision they had absolutely nothing to do with.

When the federal government makes Head Start harder to access, it is already making this the states’ problem to solve. Those families don’t stop needing care, and state pre-K and child care systems have to absorb the impact, even though they already rely on Head Start funding to serve some of their highest-need families.

Head Start was created sixty years ago to give children living in poverty a strong start in life. That investment—and the kids and families who depend on it—is worth fighting like hell for. We can oppose changes that would make Head Start harder to access while still working to make the program better for kids and families.

2️⃣ Put states in the driver’s seat.

Today, Head Start, state pre-K, and child care funding can bring different—and sometimes conflicting—requirements into the same classroom. Providers trying to blend those dollars can end up running parallel systems for children who are literally learning side by side.

Meanwhile, red, blue, and purple states are already building pre-K programs, expanding child care access, strengthening early literacy, and trying to create a more coherent experience for families from birth through kindergarten. Head Start should be another tool states can use to build that system, not a separate system they have to work around.

So let’s make this make a whole lot more sense. Give states the Head Start funding and responsibility to bring those pieces together around one vision for kids, or in other words: block grant Head Start funding to states.

With control of those dollars, states could more easily blend funding, serve children together, support educators consistently, and open more high-quality seats. A Head Start-funded child could learn in the same classroom as a child funded through state pre-K, child care assistance, or private tuition. Families could choose the high-quality setting that works for them without having to worry about which funding stream pays for the seat.

None of this means handing states a blank check. The federal government should still protect the purpose of Head Start funding and make sure it continues serving our lowest-income and most vulnerable kids. But within those guardrails, states should have more responsibility for how Head Start fits into their early childhood systems—sitting alongside block grants they are already responsible for, such as CCDF.

Built into Head Start’s model has always been the recognition that communities are different. Head Start started as a community-level intervention. Giving states a bigger role doesn’t have to change that. By putting states in control, and allowing them to coordinate funding, Head Start can work alongside the other early childhood programs to build what works for families across their communities and better serve the state’s most vulnerable students.

3️⃣ Pilot state leadership before taking it nationwide.

There are advantages to giving states more control over Head Start, but there’s also a fair and obvious concern: Not every state is ready to take this on.

Based on my experience running government, I believe the solution is to start with a pilot program. Choose a handful of states with strong early childhood systems—and governors ready to make this work—then give them the opportunity to lead. States with strong, unified governance models, like Virginia and Louisiana, would be great places to start, and New Mexico is another state worth looking at.

A pilot would let states test what it takes to bring Head Start, pre-K, child care, and other early childhood investments together around one vision for kids and families. It would also give governors real ownership of their birth-to-five systems and create more state-level champions for Head Start. And it would enable the federal government to carry forth and scale real lessons on how to both support states and hold them accountable to deliver on Head Start’s promise for kids and families.

Access to Head Start is too important for too many kids and families for us to sit back and accept a system we know could work better.

Special thanks to Nasha Patel for contributing to this week’s issue.