Children getting ahead
January 17, 2006
HEAD START turned 40 last year, prompting warm memories of how the federal government marched into the work of educating poor preschoolers in a 1960s attempt to break the cycle of poverty.
Now some Head Start staff members are feeling the shadowy doubts of middle age -- and congressional budget cuts. Nancy Topping-Tailby, executive director of the Massachusetts Head Start Association, wonders if the program will still exist 40 years from now. It's a pressing issue for Massachusetts, which is building a statewide preschool system.
''A Head Start volunteer helps children to trust the stranger who would teach them," Lady Bird Johnson said in 1965. The program took root in cities, rural areas, and Indian reservations. Parents were actively involved. Great change seemed within reach.
Over the years, successes bloomed. Children learned and received social services. Parents thrived: volunteering in classes, making governance decisions, and using their experiences to get jobs or work as advocates. And foster parents found staff who were able to help children with tough problems.
Political spectators have been bruising, however. In 2004, Governor Romney praised Head Start's positive effect on children in their first years of school, but questioned whether the program improved graduation rates and dropout rates. The comment frustrated local Head Start administrators who didn't understand why Romney didn't just look at the research. In 2002, findings from the National Institute for Early Education Research concluded that Head Start does produce long-term educational benefits, but that it could do more if it were better funded and set higher standards.
Unfortunately, Head Start received a dispiriting Christmas present from Congress: a one percent cut to its $6.8 billion budget. According to the National Head Start Association, that's the equivalent of cutting more than 16,000 slots, even though nearly 4 million children are eligible but unenrolled in both Head Start and Early Head Start, which serves the youngest children.
''We're seen as a rich program," says Topping-Tailby, noting that people don't factor in the cost of providing services. So instead of roaring into the 21st century, Head Start will have to make do, warding off the effects of stagnant funding and inflation.
A better mission would be to learn Head Start's lessons, looking at its strengths and weaknesses so higher goals can be set and wiser public investments can be made. Financial times may be tight, but building a country where families can prosper regardless of their economic circumstances remains a visionary part of the American dream. |
