OPINION:
Head Start providers know the children and families they serve better than federal bureaucrats in Washington. Yet a recent Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposal to give Head Start programs more freedom to make their own decisions has reportedly horrified many providers.
“Providers say HHS proposal guts preschool,” blared a Washington Post headline. Before the proposed regulations were even unveiled, the Los Angeles Times warned that the “Proposed Trump overhaul of Head Start raises anxiety for California providers and families.”
What’s causing the uproar?
HHS says the proposed rule would rescind more than 1,400 regulatory provisions and replace the five-part Head Start Program Performance Standards with a dramatically streamlined set of regulations.
For the most part, the rule simply strips out federal regulations that either duplicate the Head Start Act or dictate choices that states and local programs could make themselves.
That’s not ’gutting’ Head Start. It’s questioning the premise that federal regulators know the best way to run local programs.
Paradoxically, some parts of the proposal actually increase federal micromanagement of Head Start providers, something the administration should not do. But it’s a far cry from gutting preschool.
Much of what’s in the proposal is a welcome change. For example, current federal rules dictate staff-to-child ratios and maximum class sizes — despite a lack of evidence establishing an optimal ratio or class size. The proposed rule would largely defer to state and local standards instead.
That matters because state requirements vary considerably, and Head Start’s federal rules are generally more restrictive. A program that believes its current ratio works well can keep it. But another might decide that slightly larger classes allow it to pay teachers more, deal with staffing shortages or serve additional children.
If the proposed changes go through, the people closest to young children — not federal bureaucrats — can weigh these trade-offs. The proposal provides options, but it doesn’t require programs to use them.
A little humility on the part of regulators is good to see when it comes to preschool, since there isn’t an agreed-upon definition of high quality. Moreover, while mandates regulating a certain level of teacher credentials, class sizes and hours of instruction are often equated with quality, research on the effectiveness of these inputs is mixed.
Tennessee’s pre-K program, for example, met nine of 10 National Institute for Early Education Research quality benchmarks. But a randomized study found that initial benefits faded and participating children subsequently experienced worse academic and behavioral outcomes on several measures.
Head Start’s own national impact study similarly found early academic advantages that largely disappeared by elementary school.
This doesn’t mean that preschool is harmful or that children never benefit from Head Start. But these results should make us skeptical that government officials know which combination of rules will produce the best results for millions of diverse children.
Beyond the mixed findings of studies, parents simply have very different preferences. Some want full-day, center-based care. Others prefer part-time preschool, religious providers or home-based care. Still others want relatives to care for their children, or to care for children themselves.
America is far too large and diverse for a one-size-fits-all preschool model dictated from Washington. Trimming federal mandates makes it easier for programs to tailor their offerings to what local parents actually want.
The new proposal does not consistently follow its own deregulatory logic, however. While relinquishing federal control in many areas, HHS would become more prescriptive in others — including new federal requirements concerning nutrition, physical activity, marriage promotion and English-language instruction.
If parents, providers, and state and local officials can determine appropriate class sizes and hours, surely the feds can trust them with these questions as well.
Reducing federal micromanagement of Head Start is a significant improvement. But the fight over these regulations (and the temptation on both sides to impose their preferred rules) raises a more fundamental question: Why is the federal government making these decisions at all?
The Constitution gives Washington no general authority over education, and six decades of federal preschool policy have not shown that centralized rules produce lasting gains.
The best approach is to leave early childhood education in the hands of families, providers, communities and states — not Washington.
• Colleen Hroncich is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.