Head Start has been holding children back

In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.It aims to bring some needed reform to Head Start, one of the most wasteful programs bequeathed to an unsuspecting nation by President Lyndon Johnson’s so-called Great Society, the source of many of the thorny problems that require remedy today. Head Start is a taxpayer-funded program that purports to give preschoolers an early start, even as early as the womb, as it also pretends to help pregnant mothers, before they enter kindergarten. It has never delivered and should be sunset.Short of that, however, the deregulatory fixes by the Trump administration are welcome. Yet, they are eliciting the usual howls of gloom and doom by liberals, and especially those whose funding trough is about to be taken away. A rule change by the Office of Management and Budget issued in May met with equal outcry and had hundreds of thousands of comments — many, if not most, orchestrated by leftist organizations that have come to see the government teat as a right — before the comment period closed in July.And yet that OMB NPRM was, like the present one, highly beneficial, drying up funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion; critical race theory; disparate impact; and all other types of racial and sexual discrimination disguised as social justice programs. It even stops funding projects with communist China. Had it been in effect years ago, it would have prevented funding the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab that likely produced COVID-19, or Faucigate.The cackling about the present HHS proposed rule has become so intense that the agency last week published some frequently asked questions to debunk the parade of horrors being bandied about. It even had to include this gem, “Is HHS Banning Toothbrushing?” Answer: “No, the NPRM would remove the federal requirement that programs assist children with daily toothbrushing.”The NPRM was issued by HHS’s Administration for Children and Families and is called “Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs.” It highlights these areas: Empowering Head Start parents: This is an unfortunate heading, as Head Start needs to be ended, not strengthened. Still, the proposed rule rightly recognizes parents as “children’s primary teachers,” and thus preserves requirements that programs engage parents and families in their children’s education. Emphasizing health, nutrition, and physical exercise: Programs will be required to provide nutrient-dense, whole foods compatible with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and structure mealtimes to support child learning. Increasing access to Head Start Slots by decreasing administrative costs: “The proposal promises to significantly reduce administrative burden by capping the cost of administrative overhead and reducing compliance-driven activities.” Aligning licensing standards to state early childhood systems: The rule shifts to the individual states’ governing authority for group size and ratios, education requirements, background checks, and transportation practices. Removing duplicative regulations: The rule eliminates regulations that restate requirements already codified in the Head Start Act or other federal laws. It’s all pretty sound. Research finds that Head Start is the nation’s second-most heavily regulated preschool program. In some states, the median spending per child for Head Start is greater than the per-student spending in K-12 public schools. Head Start is expensive and burdensome, and any learning gains among participants disappear by third grade.PUT HISTORY ON THE WALLS BEFORE THE ARGUMENTS STARTYet those who gorge at the Head Start table — that is, not the children or their families, but the “community service organizations” that operate Head Start programs — have taken to the mattresses once again.Renee Hungerford, the executive director and CEO of Community Action of Orleans & Genesee, two adjacent rural counties in upstate New York, was quoted by her local NPR station as calling a meeting of her board and being “very straight” with its members. “I said, ‘If this, you know, all these things go through … I really have to look at what is left of this agency.’”So why is the Trump administration not scrapping Head Start altogether? One guess is that the administration is likely not pursuing that route because it would require congressional action.As my Heritage Foundation colleagues Jonathan Butcher and Madison Marino Doan wrote in July, “A new Heritage Foundation report reveals a harsh reality: Head Start centers are overregulated, unsafe, expensive, and fail to deliver lasting results for children.”Their preferred approach? “Policymakers should sunset Head Start and prioritize policy changes that give parents more choices and improve transparency.” In the meantime, however, “the Trump administration should continue to reduce regulations, including fewer degree and credit-hour requirements for teachers and changes to staff-to-child ratios and group-size limits.”One more thing. An additional feature in the rule proposal not mentioned in the press release has particularly stuck in the craw of activists. The proposed regulation “will require programs to conduct all education to children in English.”The proposed rule specifies “that if a child’s native language is not English, and the child does not speak English, a program must prioritize teaching English to the child.” An exception is made for tribal lands. “An Indian Head Start agency will not be subject” to this shift “so long as the language being spoken relates to the furtherance of tribal heritage.”If approved, “These proposed changes would represent a shift from current Head Start regulations which require programs to support bilingualism, including both English and the home language for children who are dual language learners.”Head Start’s current support for bilingualism, the rule reminds us, is “at odds with Executive Order 14224, Designating English as the Official Language of the United States.” This order, which President Donald Trump signed on March 1, 2025, correctly reminds us that “learning English opens doors economically for families and helps individuals better engage with their communities.”Not just that. While knowledge of foreign languages is indeed valuable and personally enriching — I speak several and am always trying to add others — bilingualism is a disuniting factor in a nation. But don’t take my word for it. Just look at the examples of Canada, Spain, Belgium, etc.These proposed changes would thus “minimize non-essential multilingual services and redirect resources toward English-language education and assimilation.” HHS estimates that 33.4% of nontribal Head Start service locations where language data is available “are operated by programs that primarily serve dual language learners” and half of those are instructed in a language other than English. How are these children going to grow into adults who can relate to, and compete with, their fellow English-speaking citizens?DEI ISN’T DEAD. IT’S MUTATINGACF provided studies that demonstrate the benefits of English-only in the classroom. In one study that followed a nationally representative kindergarten cohort through eighth grade, “children proficient in English by kindergarten entry kept pace with native English speakers in reading and math and had better longer-term cognitive/behavioral outcomes than children reaching proficiency later.”Head Start has been very costly. According to Heather MacDonald at the Manhattan Institute, “since its inception in 1966, Head Start has spent more than $240 billion in taxpayer dollars.” How ironic if all this money’s been spent only to hold children back.