Proponents of this bill share a disdain for federal social programs, despite successes.

In the next week or two, the U.S. House of Representatives may take up a bill advocated by President Bush that threatens to dismantle Head Start, one of the most successful federal social programs in American history.

If enacted, H.R. 2210 would allow some states to receive Head Start dollars as block grants. These state-run programs (unlike the current model, in which community-based Head Start programs receive funds directly from the federal government) could use their own untested standards, avoid federal quality oversight, diminish services, weaken the role of parents and shift money around to other programs.

Although the bill provides that only eight states can be selected for block grants (and Maine does not currently qualify), the change is intended as a demonstration project. This leaves the door open for eventual expansion to more or even all states.

Poor or disabled children do better in school and in life if they get a head start in learning before entering kindergarten. That is the basic premise of Head Start. Nearly four decades of experience involving 20 million children shows that the current model achieves this result. National studies confirm that the gap is narrowed significantly between Head Start children and other children in vocabulary and writing skills; once in kindergarten, they continue to make substantial progress in language and math skills. The impact, moreover, is long lasting. Head Start graduates are less likely than similarly situated children to repeat a grade, require special education, or be charged with or convicted of a crime. They are more likely to complete high school and college and earn more as adults than those who did not have the benefit of this program.

I have seen examples of the positive impact of Head Start throughout Maine. In Lewiston, Androscoggin Head Start and Child Care and the Donna Wuori Early Head Start Center, for example, have proven records of success in providing high quality services to pre-schoolers, infants, toddlers, parents and pregnant girls and women. Thanks to their excellent comprehensive programs and cooperative relationships with nearby schools, businesses and other community support systems, many disadvantaged children in Lewiston have been able to successfully transition to Head Start and to school.

Community-run programs like those in Lewiston, operating under federal oversight and guidelines, prepare preschoolers to function in the classroom and improve their language skills by immersing them in stimulating activities with other children and trained adults. In addition to academic learning, the programs address the many other obstacles these children and their families face. If the children have poor diets, they are fed and their families shown how to obtain and prepare nutritious food. If the children have medical, dental, developmental or psychological problems, they are evaluated and their families given advice on how to seek treatment. If they live in inadequate housing or family members suffer unemployment, substance abuse or emotional turmoil, referrals to agencies that will help are made. As one parent wrote me, “Head Start programs cannot help the children if the families do not receive the help they need.”

Parents and other local volunteers help in the classroom and serve on the governing boards that shape the content and direction of the program. This inclusive approach not only prepares children for school, but enables parents to help their children and themselves for the rest of their lives-as educators, nurturers and advocates.

Proponents of block-granting argue that change is necessary to improve the program. Significantly, however, the part of the bill that purports to improve the academic content of Head Start (Title I) is not required in “block grant” programs. I agree with a former Head Start mother who wrote me: “I will not be fooled by word games. I do not believe that you can ‘improve’ Head Start by breaking it up and diverting its funding to the states for use in untested and unproven programs that may not survive deficit-driven state budget cuts over the next few years.”

If you really want to improve Head Start, the way to do it is clear: full federal funding, which would save money in the long run. Numerous studies show that for every dollar spent on Head Start, taxpayers save $4 to $7 in the future due to lower education, crime and welfare expenses. Yet, the president’s budget for Head Start is insufficient to include all eligible children, and does not even keep up with inflation. Moreover, although H.R. 2210 mandates stricter standards for non-block grant programs (such as requiring more education for teachers), it comes with no additional funding to pay for these improvements.

This record exposes the truth about the administration’s effort to “reform” Head Start. Proponents share a disdain for federal social programs, no matter what the evidence. The track record of Head Start shows that no need exists to restructure the program; rather, we should focus our attention on its real financial needs. I will do my best to spread the word in Congress, but the public must also know what is at stake.

Tom Allen represents Maine’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Copy the Story Link