One of the most beloved, most effective, and most important programs in the federal government’s social safety net is about to be eviscerated by the Trump administration and Congress seems to be doing nothing to stop it.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that it would draft a rule deregulating Head Start. In fact, “deregulation” is a euphemism. Destruction seems closer to the mark.
Among the many requirements to be eliminated or weakened: math and literacy instruction requirements; child-staff ratios that protect children; medical screenings and dental exams; and opportunities to instruct Spanish-speaking children in Spanish. Even a simple requirement that children brush their teeth would be scrapped.
Home visits would also be eliminated. Although this might sound insignificant, historically home visits helped to create trust between Head Start program administrators and parents and provided vital information to teachers that helped them to tailor instruction and care to a child’s family circumstances.
Why deregulate Head Start? Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Head Start program, says it wants to save money, serve more children, and give state and local governments more control.
The savings would be generated by trimming administrative costs and by allowing child/staff ratios for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers to climb upwards. Because staff costs account for two-thirds of program expenses, this would either permit total program costs to decline or allow for more children to be served.
It is true that only 42 percent of income-eligible children actually enroll in Head Start. On the other hand, for more children to be served, the Trump administration would have to aggressively promote enrollment—a prospect that seems highly unlikely.
In fact, in program after program, the Trump administration has been adding administrative burdens, not subtracting them. As Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan have warned, these administrative burdens make it far less likely that citizens of any age will be able to enjoy the benefits of programs explicitly designed for them.
From the very beginning, Head Start has been structured differently than other federal grants-in-aid programs. Instead of sending federal funds to state and local governments, Head Start sends the money to nonprofit organizations that have close ties to the local community. Also, unlike Medicaid, S-CHIP, and federal highway programs, there are no matching funds requirements.
The genius of this idea is that needy children in the poorest of states—Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia—do not depend on the generosity of their cash-poor state governments. Because of its unique design, Head Start has been able to help children who need help the most.
One of the key elements of Head Start’s current rules is a set of child/staff ratio requirements. Under the proposed deregulation, these ratio requirements would be replaced by existing state requirements for day care centers.
For example, the current Head Start child/staff ratio for 3-year-olds is 8/1. Given existing child/staff ratios for day care centers, the child/staff ratio for 3-year-olds would probably climb to 11/1 in Alabama, 12/1 in South Carolina, 13/1 in Louisiana, and 14/1 in Mississippi.
If you’ve ever tried to manage rambunctious young children at a family reunion, you know how challenging this could be. In fact, many studies of child/staff ratios have shown that lower ratios yield better cognitive outcomes. A 25 percent or 50 percent increase in such ratios could be disastrous.
Is the Head Start program, as we know it, worth saving? Having reviewed numerous empirical studies and conducted my own research on preschool effects, my answer to that question is unequivocally yes!
A randomized control trial funded by the federal government found that Head Start has positive short-term effects on cognitive development, especially for three-year-olds. Effects on pre-reading and pre-writing skills were stronger than effects on pre-math skills.
Interestingly, some of Head Start’s strongest effects were on health outcomes (its secondary role) rather than on educational outcomes. For example, Head Start alums were noticeably more likely to have received dental care.
Head Start critics note that Head Start effects diminish over time. I have no doubt that there is some fade-out. That is typically true of any educational intervention.
On the other hand, numerous well-designed studies have discovered enduring positive effects from Head Start. Martha Bailey and colleagues found that Head Start generates a two-thirds of a year increase in schooling, a 2.7 percent increase in high school completion, and a 39 percent increase in college completion. Jens Ludwig and Luke Miller found strong evidence of lower mortality rates. Andrew Barr and Chloe Gibbs even found second-generation effects: children whose mothers attended Head Start went on to earn higher wages.
Head Start can certainly be improved. A 2022 HHS Inspector General report, for example, found that 27 percent of Head Start grantees violated child safety protocols at least once between 2015 and 2020. Although that is a legitimate cause for concern, an increase in child/staff ratios is clearly not the solution to the problem. If anything, it will only make matters worse.
The beauty of national Head Start regulations is that they help to ensure that all or most Head Start programs will generate positive outcomes for kids, not just a few. If Congress allows the Trump administration to dilute or eliminate important educational and health requirements, Head Start’s short-term and long-term effects will be weaker.
For the sake of our nation’s disadvantaged children, we shouldn’t allow that to happen. Head Start is a national treasure. It should not be treated as a political football.
Bill Gormley is University Professor Emeritus of Public Policy at Georgetown University. He directed multiple evaluations of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s universal pre-K and Head Start Programs and is the author of Too Many Bridges and The Silent Trumpet.