GROUPS: HEAD START SHOULD BE SAVED AND IMPROVED; NEW HOUSE BILL REWRITE DOES NOT ADDRESS KEY OBJECTIONS

Block Grant Approach at Core of Bill Means No Major Progress Made

WASHINGTON, D.C.//July 24, 2003// Leading groups in the campaign to save the successful 38-year-old Head Start program that has served 20 million at-risk American children urged today that the U.S. House of Representatives oppose a last-minute rewrite of H.R. 2210, the so-called "School Readiness Act of 2003."

Responding to an eleventh-hour "tweaking" of minor provisions of the Castle bill cleared through the House Rules Committee overnight, the group of organizations urging continued opposition to H.R. 2210 includes the Children's Defense Fund, United Way of America, National League of Cities, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), National Women's Law Center, Child Welfare League of America, Easter Seals, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, National Council of Jewish Women, and the National Head Start Association.

In a joint statement, the groups said:

"We are disappointed that the authors of H.R. 2210 chose to address none of the substantive concerns raised by the more than 100 major organizations concerned about the future of Head Start under their bill. We have been prepared all along to support any bill that keeps the federal program alive, raises standards with the money to get the job done, and serves more children. However, the rewritten version of H.R. 2210 does none of those things and we call for its defeat.

The whole notion of block granting the Head Start program by turning it over to all or certain states is a total non-starter among many U.S. House members and a majority of the members of the U.S. Senate. The fact that the 'tweaked' version of H.R. 2210 continues to focus on a block grant transfer to eight states means that the bill is unchanged at its core. As such, it has no prospects for success in the U.S. Senate, even if it manages to squeak by in the House.

Most criticism of the bill to date has focused on the dismantling of the Head Start program that would result if the federal government starts abandoning its commitment to the 1 million children this program serves each year. The rewritten bill does nothing to allay those concerns and, as such, should not be supported by anyone who wishes to be seen as a supporter of Head Start. A vote for the revised version of H.R. 2210 is a vote AGAINST Head Start.

The rewritten version of H.R. 2210 also:

• Fails to include the money needed to pay for the higher educational standards that will be required of Head Start teachers. Everyone supports higher standards for Head Start teachers, but we have to have the money to implement the needed changes. As such, the bill rewrite completely fails to address the serious 'funding gap' problem in the original version of H.R. 2210.
• Fails to provide funding levels even remotely close to what is needed to expand the program to serve more eligible children. Head Start needs more money to serve more eligible children, not less. This is a big step in the wrong direction.
• Fails to guarantee the comprehensive performance standards and high quality mandates of Head Start for the eight pilot states. As a result, children and families in programs in pilot states could lose critical support services important to school readiness. The resulting two-tier approach to Head Start programs makes no sense particularly in the context of a bill that purports to be focused on achieving better results.
• Fails to protect local Head Start programs even in pilot states. The bill rewrite includes new language that would give the Bush Administration overly broad authority to kill local Head Start programs for 'deficiencies' it deems to be significant. The bill would permit state education authorities in pilot states to draft plans that could terminate local Head Start programs, despite the supposed five-year protection clause.
• Fails to provide needed funds to expand Head Start to serve more seasonal and migrant workers. The new language actually provides LESS than one quarter of 1 percent of a relatively small pot of money for 'expanded' services. This falls far short of even qualifying as paying lip service to the serious concerns of advocates for seasonal and migrant workers, whose sons and daughters are the most underserved of all at-risk children in the U.S.
• Fails to ensure that any potentially eligible state will be excluded from the threat of being a block grant state. Despite assurances that may be made privately by various parties to members of Congress, there is no way in the absence of specific legislative language and ensuring federal regulatory implementation to know which states might be selected for block granting purposes. Thus, any statements being made to the effect that certain potentially eligible states are ‘safe’ from block granting are both premature and inaccurate.”

CONTACT: Christine Kraly, for NHSA, (703) 276-3258 or ckraly@hastingsgroup.com.