House lawmakers debate state role in Head Start management
Republicans and Democrats on the House Education and the Workforce Education Reform Subcommittee kicked off their discussion Tuesday on reauthorization of the Head Start program with a partisan debate over GOP plans to allow states to administer funding for the preschool program.
Democrats on the subcommittee repeatedly emphasized their opposition to a provision in the proposed reauthorization bill of Subcommittee Chairman Michael Castle, R-Del., that would set up a demonstration project for states to exercise greater control over the program, which serves over 900,000 poor children under the age of five. The demonstration project was included in the bill at the urging of the Bush administration.
Republicans on the subcommittee expressed lukewarm support for the project, but Castle said he is willing to compromise and would work with Democrats to tighten requirements on states chosen to participate. Still, Castle said that the proposal was well-intentioned, and aimed to boost the efficient delivery of preschool services by allowing states to combine their own preschool programs with Head Start. "Head Start does wonderful things," Castle said. "My question is: Could Head Start do even more?"
Castle cited figures from the Health and Human Services Department's Family and Child Experiences Survey of Head Start children that found that Head Start children made only marginal gains in literacy and mathematics during their time in the program. For example, he said, Head Start children ranked in the 16th percentile of children nationally in vocabulary when entering the program, and left at the 23rd percentile. In mathematics, the Head Start children entered at the 17th percentile and left at the 19th.
Even so, the plan to allow states to administer Head Start has sparked vociferous lobbying by the National Head Start Association, the Virginia group that represents local Head Start directors in Washington. It argues that most state-run preschool programs fail to meet Head Start's quality standards and should not be trusted to oversee the program.
Helga Lemke, executive director of a California Head Start program, testified Tuesday that the Castle bill, as drafted, would not even require states to meet current Head Start performance standards to participate in the demonstration project. "Cash-strapped states can't be counted on to maintain the same comprehensive services that Head Start offers," she said.
From the panelists' discussion, it was clear that Castle's other major proposal to require that 50 percent of Head Start teachers hold a bachelors degree by 2008 is far less controversial. Amy Wilkins, executive director of the Trust for Early Education, said that increasing the quality of Head Start teachers would be the most effective thing that the federal government could do to improve outcomes for Head Start children. Members of the panel, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed that the federal government would have to increase pay for Head Start teachers to attract and retain degree-holding teachers. Wilkins estimated that the cost could reach $2.2 billion by 2008.
COMMENTS
- The Head Start program is worth having. Be careful about wanting to get rid of everything we have today that is not in the Constituiton. You may get what you are complaining about and it may affect something you want. Nothing about bailing out airlines, nothing about giving billions to foreign countries etc. Leave Head Start alone and it will pay the country back with better people than you will get without it. GovExec.com reader Posted June 10, 2003 8:10 AM
- The federal government should not even be in this area - read the constitution guys. Get rid of the department and save the money - if the states want it they can increase taxes and offer the program that their citizens desire, or not. This is a waste of federal tax funds- that does not mean the program is not of value. However, the determination of whether or not to have the program should be at a more local level. My guess is that it is a relatively low priority for most states and the states cannot fund their higher priorities because the feds take the citizens money and fund this stuff at the federal level and circumvent the states. Of course some association in Washington DC knows best for everyone in the country and the local leaders are not the place to put the decisions because the people in Washington would be without a job. GovExec.com reader Posted June 4, 2003 7:03 AM
