[Senate Hearing 108-314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-314
REAUTHORIZING HEAD START: PREPARING CHILDREN TO SUCCEED IN SCHOOL AND
IN LIFE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING PROPOSED LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR HEAD START,
FOCUSING ON PROGRAMS TO PREPARE CHILDREN TO SUCCEED IN SCHOOL AND LIFE
__________
JULY 22, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
88-542 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
BILL FRIST, Tennessee EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATTY MURRAY, Washington
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JACK REED, Rhode Island
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Sharon R. Soderstrom, Staff Director
J. Michael Myers, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003
Page
Gregg, Hon. Judd, a U.S. Senator from the State New Hampshire.... 1
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 3
Hill, Windy M., Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services; G. Reid Lyon, Chief, Child
Development and Behavior Branch, National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health,
accompanied by Russ Whitehurst, Director, Institute For
Educational Sciences; Marnie S. Shaul, Director, Education,
Workforce and Income Security Issues, U.S. General Accounting
Office, Washington, DC; Amy Wilkins, Executive Director, Trust
For Early Education, Washington, DC; and Janis Santos,
Executive Director, Holyoke-Chicopee-Springfield Head Start
Center, Springfield, MA........................................ 8
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Windy Hill................................................... 40
G. Reid Lyon................................................. 44
Marnie S. Shaul.............................................. 51
Janis Santos................................................. 57
Amy Wilkins.................................................. 62
Catholic Charities, USA...................................... 66
Stanley B. Peck.............................................. 68
Case study--Raising Preschool Teacher Qualifications......... 70
Manda Lopez.................................................. 85
Navajo Nation................................................ 88
(iii)
REAUTHORIZING HEAD START: PREPARING CHILDREN TO SUCCEED IN SCHOOL AND
IN LIFE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Gregg
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Alexander, Warner, Kennedy, Dodd,
Harkin, Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Reed, and Clinton.
Opening Statement of Senator Gregg
The Chairman. It is 10 o'clock, so we are going to begin. I
understand Senator Kennedy is headed in this direction, and
when he gets here, we will proceed with his statement. But I
wanted to get my statement in and then get started on the
hearing.
Today we are going to be talking about Head Start, which is
a program that has had considerable success over the years, and
I think we can take great pride in it, really, as a Federal
Government initiative to try to get kids, preschool children,
into an atmosphere which is nurturing and healthy.
It was begun in 1975 as part of the War on Poverty. It has
a $7 billion budget, and it supports about 900,000 children who
are of extreme low income in most instances.
Its strength in my opinion is that it has been community-
based, that it has always involved significant community
participation, and that it has been focused on making sure that
the children who come into the program, many of whom come from
difficult family situations, get a healthy environment and a
decent meal or two through the day and are given some ideas on
how to get along with other kids and, hopefully, ideas on how
to deal with life and move on and get ready for school.
There has been considerable discussion about its
reauthorization. Obviously, the House has already produced a
bill. I believe very strongly that there needs to be a building
upon what is I think a very strong foundation in the program,
and that building should be focused primarily on a more
aggressive approach in the area of academic achievement, giving
these kids a better chance at succeeding when they get to the
first grade by first off giving them some of the tools they
will need to be competitive with their peers who are coming
from other experiences into the first grade or into
kindergarten and giving them stronger language skills, stronger
skills in the area of basic knowledge of the alphabet and
hopefully some phonics and basic numerology.
In addition, in strengthening the academic component, I
think we also need to look at some accountability to make sure
that we have Head Start programs that are actually
accomplishing what we desire them to accomplish, and we also
need to align the programs with the elementary schools that
they feed into so that both the leaders of the Head Start
community within the Head Start Program and the folks who are
going to get these children as they move forward into
kindergarten and first grade will have a sense that they are
all talking off the same script.
Those are my priorities as we move forward in this
reauthorization. I do not wish to reinvent the wheel. I think
we have basically a very strong product to work from in the
present Head Start Program, but I think there are ways to make
it a better program for the children who are participating in
it, and I intend to work toward accomplishing that as we go
through reauthorization.
We are joined today by five witnesses who are going to
formally testify. Windy Hill has been the associate
commissioner of the Head Start Bureau since January of last
year. Prior to joining the Bureau, Ms. Hill served as executive
director of Centex Family Services in Texas, which administered
nine Head Start centers in four counties.
Dr. Reid Lyon is a research psychologist and chief of the
Child Development and Behavior Branch within the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development at NIH. Dr.
Lyon received a Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico, and
prior to coming to NIH, Dr. Lyon taught children with learning
disabilities.
We also have Marnie Shaul, who is the director of education
issues at the General Accounting Office. She is responsible for
the studies that GAO undertakes for Congress on early childhood
programs and elementary and secondary school education. Ms.
Shaul has had a variety of career activities including
research, teaching, and public policy.
Amy Wilkins is executive director of Trust for Early
Education which was established in 2002 to provide a strong and
effective voice in support of high-quality voluntary preschool
for 3- and 4-year-olds. Prior to working with the Education
Trust, Ms. Wilkins worked at the Child Defense Center, and she
also served in the media.
I believe Senator Kennedy will introduce Ms. Santos, who is
from Holyoke, I believe, which is a great town; I have spent
many days in Holyoke.
And Dr. Whitehurst, who is head of OERI, which does
research in the area of education, is here to answer questions
as well.
Senator Kennedy.
Opening Statement of Senator Kennedy
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
having this hearing and for recognizing the importance of
taking action on this legislation. We are looking forward to
working with you.
Today's hearing gives us the opportunity to discuss the
achievements of Head Start and the ideas that will be
considered for its reauthorization. For 38 years, Head Start
has been a helping hand for our Nation's neediest families and
children. Head Start today gives nearly one million young
children the support they need to begin school ready to learn.
It guarantees that children see doctors and dentists and are
immunized against childhood diseases. It teaches children to
eat healthy meals. It welcomes parents into its classrooms and
urges them to participate actively in the administration of its
local programs.
Three decades of solid research show that Head Start works.
Children who participate in the program may gain some
vocabulary, become more interested in books, and learn to get
along better with one another. Children from the same
background who do not participate in Head Start do not make
these gains.
But the need by children across the country for these
services is miles from being met. Because of inadequate
funding, 40 percent of those eligible still have no Head Start.
In the case of Early Head Start, which serves children ages
zero to 3, the figure is a shameful 97 percent. Ninety-seven
percent of children eligible for Early Head Start have no
access to it.
The President's budget for next year recommends only enough
funding to cover inflation; it has no funding to serve any
additional children. That is wrong. Full funding of Head Start
should be a high priority for Congress and the Nation. Putting
Head Start on the path to full funding would require an
additional $1 billion for the coming year compared to the $148
million the administration proposes.
Obviously, money is not the only answer. But it is a large
part of it. New resources should come with proven effective
reforms that will genuinely improve Head Start, not undermine
it. I am confident we can build on Head Start's record of
success by making several key improvements.
Better coordination with State and local programs makes
sense. We can align Head Start with early learning standards in
the States, facilitate coordination between Head Start and
local elementary schools, and provide better training and
support for Head Start staff and for those working in early
education programs as well. This kind of coordination should be
our goal in all 50 States.
We should continue Head Start's focus on the whole child
and strengthen its focus in the area of school readiness. Head
Start needs strong educational standards that emphasize
language and literacy, expanded vocabulary, and pre-math
skills.
The key point here is that even if children are excited
about books and know some letters of the alphabet and can
recognize some numbers, they are not ready for school unless
they can also follow a teacher's directions and cooperate with
the child in the next seat or across the aisle. The development
of a child's pre-literacy and pre-math skills is important, and
so is the development of their social and emotional skills.
Children need and deserve support in each of these areas.
We also need to increase our investment in teachers in Head
Start classrooms. Head Start children need the best possible
instruction to succeed, and Head Start teachers and staff need
to know the families and the children they serve.
In 1998, we set a goal for the program to ensure that half
of all teachers earn an associate degree by 2003. Head Start
has met that goal. In fact, Head Start can be a model for
career development. We should work toward the goal of a Head
Start teacher with a bachelor's degree in every classroom, and
we should pay those teachers a fair wage--give them the ongoing
support to keep them in the program.
We should also strengthen the accountability in Head Start.
Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the
field. All Head Start programs should use the data from these
reviews to improve their programs and enhance the role of
annual evaluations.
I support the development of a high-quality assessment for
Head Start children. But any assessment of 4-year-olds needs to
be very carefully prepared. It has to be valid and reliable and
balanced in what it measures--not just reading and math skills
but social and emotional skills as well. It must be fair,
culturally appropriate, and recognize the needs of children
whose first language is not English.
Above all, though, we cannot afford to undermine the very
reforms we are trying to achieve. State block grants are not
reform. A block grant for Head Start would mean no guarantee of
services for the neediest children; no guarantee of medical
checkups, dental visits, and screenings for hearing and vision;
no guarantee of support for parents. It would mean lower
quality and lower standards, and it would jeopardize the time
that children spend learning.
I oppose any effort to block-grant Head Start--not in 50
States, not even in one State. Why take a chance on any block
grant that would leave any young child behind?
We know that we can strengthen Head Start and do it in ways
that do not weaken it. We are fortunate to have witnesses today
who will share their expertise and insights on strengthening
Head Start.
Thank you all for joining us this morning. We are looking
forward to hearing from each of you.
I appreciate the courtesy of the chair in letting me
introduce Janis Santos. Ms. Santos has served as executive
director of the Holyoke-Chicopee-Springfield Head Start Center
since 1979 and is currently on the National Head Start
Association Board of Directors.
Janis began her teaching career by opening up the first
early childhood center in Ludlow, MA, in 1973 under the Head
Start Program. Under her leadership, the Holyoke-Chicopee-
Springfield Head Start Center has grown to be the second-
largest Head Start Center in Massachusetts and the largest
provider of early education in Western Massachusetts.
Janis has received numerous awards for community service
distinction and nonprofit operational excellence. She has been
a consistent and strong voice for Head Start programs both in
Massachusetts and nationwide, having served as chairperson of
the Massachusetts Head Start Directors Association, chairperson
of the New England Head Start Association, and a member of the
National Advisory Panel for Head Start 2010.
Janis is a Massachusetts native, and I am particularly
proud to welcome her today. She is a good friend and counselor
and advisor. I do not make a move without listening to Janis.
Janis, we are glad to have you here.
The Chairman. Janis, we need you. In a couple days, I would
like to call you and ask you to make some suggestions to
Senator Kennedy; there are some moves I want him to make.
[Laughter.]
Before we begin I have statements from Senators Enzi and
Ensign.
[The prepared statements of Senators Enzi and Ensign
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Enzi
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the
individuals who will testify about the important issue of early
childhood education and the reauthorization of the Head Start
program. As a father and soon-to-be grandfather, I am very
interested in early childhood development and believe it is one
of the most important issues to come under this Committee's
jurisdiction.
When the Head Start program was developed over 35 years
ago, it was built on the promise that the Federal Government
would take a role in helping disadvantaged children overcome
the developmental obstacles associated with poverty. Where
these children lacked family support necessary to succeed in
life, Head Start would provide a safe environment where they
could learn and grow. In addition to educating the children,
the program would also take on an important role in educating
families and providing essential services to children, like
nutrition and hygiene assistance, in order to give these
children the best start possible.
Head Start is now one of the largest Federal initiatives to
focus on children under five, reaching hundreds of thousands of
children nationwide, in thousands of centers, with an army of
teachers and support staff. More than half of the program's
teachers have earned degrees in early childhood education or a
related field. In Wyoming, there are almost 2,000 children
enrolled in Head Start programs in more than 100 classes,
including the tribal Head Start centers. Each class is staffed
by a teacher who cares deeply about the development of the
children in his or her classroom, as well as the ability of the
child's family to provide a safe and stable home.
Despite the investment in the program over its nearly 40-
year history, a significant question has been raised about the
effectiveness of Head Start. Study after study has documented
how children who enter a Head Start program are better off when
they leave. That information is encouraging and is
appropriately brought up in this hearing, but a troubling
statistic that has accompanied many of these studies is that
children leaving Head Start continue to lag behind their peers
who come from more advantageous circumstances.
According to information released by the Department of
Health and Human Services in their Family and Child Experiences
Survey (FACES), most children in Head Start couldn't identify
10 letters, a requirement in the last reauthorization of this
program. In fact, many of the children couldn't identify any
letters at all. Across the board, children leaving Head Start
programs fell below the national average in vocabulary, letter
recognition, early reading and early mathematics.
To me, this sends a clear signal that the Federal
Government needs to ensure the program promotes learning in the
same way it does the health and well being of these children.
In essence, the Head Start program has focused so much on
promoting a stable learning environment that the learning has
been overlooked. Based on this information, it seems
unnecessary for the Federal Government to require all Head
Start teachers to attend a post-secondary institution and earn
a degree in early childhood learning if the program itself
isn't designed with an appropriate focus on the children's
cognitive development.
According to a joint study published recently by the
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine
entitled Neurons to Neighborhoods, the most important years in
terms of cognitive development are the earliest. I believe we
must work to ensure that the Head Start program emphasizes an
appropriate learning environment, not only by providing health
and social services for children, but also by challenging them
to learn and develop in a way that will put them on a level
field with their peers from more fortunate circumstances. I
believe this is consistent with the goals that guided the
development of Head Start over 30 years ago.
Part of the discussion on early learning should be how Head
Start might better prepare students for elementary school by
strengthening the program's performance standards. Many of the
students leaving Head Start are better off than when they
entered, and that is important, but I feel it is important to
ask the question of whether or not Head Start students are
doing as well as they could be. If the Head Start program can
be revised to include stronger, reachable academic goals, that
needs to be a part of the discussion. We owe it to the children
participating in this program to design it in a way that they
can start school on level footing with their peers.
I also believe the discussion should include the issue of
collaboration between Head Start and similar programs operating
at the State level. Many States are running preschool programs,
including Wyoming. It makes sense to get the staff and
administrators from the different programs talking to each
other to make sure the children in these programs are getting
the best material and curricula available, so children in
several different types of programs can improve simultaneously.
The Senate has an important role to play in helping to
improve Head Start so it can provide better support for the
dedicated men and women who make the program function from day
to day, so Head Start children can succeed just as well as
their peers. I believe we need to explore potential program
changes to see where we might build on Head Start's successes
and address any shortcomings. I am convinced that an increased
emphasis on early education, combined with Head Start's success
in providing a safe and stable learning environment can serve
as the successful foundation for thousands of American children
participating in the program.
With these questions in mind, I am grateful to the experts
appearing here today who have brought their collective
experience to share with the Committee. I am confident that
this hearing will be the starting point for a valuable
discussion of how the Senate might address potential changes to
the Head Start program, as we paint a vivid picture of how well
the program is doing to help disadvantaged children reach their
potential.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Senator Ensign
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this committee is moving
forward with the reauthorization of the Head Start program. As
a new member of this committee, I am looking forward to playing
an active role in this process.
While the Head Start program has been successful for many
of the children and families who have enrolled. However, I
believe that the program can do better.
The Head Start program should continue to promote the well-
being of the whole child. However, that should not be
incompatible with an effort to focus more on early literacy
skills. This program needs to ensure that all children leaving
Head Start programs are entering kindergarten at a skill level
equal to their peers. That is not happening right now. While I
agree that many of these children are entering kindergarten at
a higher level than they would have without the assistance of
the Head Start program, these students are still not at a level
comparable to other children their age. It would be a
disservice to Head Start kids to ignore this disparity. It
would be a disservice to conduct business as usual while Head
Start kids are being left behind.
I was looking forward to the results from the completion of
the first national-level research study on this program and was
disappointed to learn that the Department of Health and Human
Services has delayed the completion of this study until 2006.
This research would have provided us, as policy makers, with
the first comprehensive nationwide study of this important
program and the impact it has had on the children and families
it serves. Every witness testifying today will point to
research regarding the effectiveness of the Head Start program,
none of which I am denying as untrue or invalid, but it would
have been very useful to have a fully comprehensive study as we
consider the reauthorization of this program.
It is my hope that we can work on this committee to improve
the coordination at the local level between Head Start programs
and early childhood and childcare programs. Currently there is
no mechanism in place for local Head Start grantees to
coordinate the services they provide with those provided by
State and local early education providers. This coordination is
necessary to ensure that we are not duplicating services, and,
more importantly, that children and families who need some
extra help are getting the services they deserve.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that I do believe
that this program can do better for both the children and
families that it serves, and I believe that many of those
improvements can be made by this committee.
The Chairman. We will begin the testimony, then, with Ms.
Hill.
STATEMENTS OF WINDY M. HILL, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, HEAD START
BUREAU, ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; G. REID LYON, CHIEF,
CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND BEHAVIOR BRANCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
HEALTH, ACCOMPANIED BY RUSS WHITEHURST, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES; MARNIE S. SHAUL, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC; AMY WILKINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRUST
FOR EARLY EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC; AND JANIS SANTOS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOLYOKE-CHICOPEE-SPRINGFIELD HEAD START
CENTER, SPRINGFIELD, MA
Ms. Hill. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. As associate commissioner of Head Start and also as
a former Head Start child and mother of a Head Start child, I
appreciate this opportunity to discuss the President's plan to
strengthen Head Start.
The House took a major step toward ensuring that Head Start
children have the skills they need to succeed in school by
marking up the School Readiness Act of 2003. We look forward to
building on the momentum created by the House bill and your
hearing today to move the Head Start reauthorization forward in
the coming weeks.
Head Start was launched in 1965 as part of a bold ``big
idea'' that no child should be limited in his or her education
because of the circumstances of their family. None of us should
be satisfied until we have achieved the vision reflected in the
``big idea'' that is synonymous with Head Start--that
economically disadvantaged children should arrive at school on
a more level playing field with economically advantaged peers--
a challenge for us to do even better.
The Head Start Program has triggered changes in early care
and education across the country. More than 40 States and the
District of Columbia now have early childhood programs of their
own. Numerous States are revising their standards for child
care and preschool programs, and as research has demonstrated
the importance of providing comprehensive services, States are
now involved in trying to integrate a multitude of other
programs aimed at young children and their families.
Federal and State Governments currently spend more than $23
billion each year for child care and preschool education, and
much more when you consider the other State health, nutrition,
and welfare-related programs that serve the same children and
families.
At the same time, however, although Head Start children
make progress in areas of school readiness during the Head
Start year, they continue to lag behind their more economically
advantaged peers on a number of important measures of early
literacy and math skills at kindergarten entry.
In addition, we are seeing an alarming lack of coordination
between Head Start and State-administered programs that is
undermining our ability to provide high-quality preschool
services to as many children as possible. President Bush is
asking Congress to include a provision in the reauthorization
of the Head Start Act to allow interested States to integrate
Head Start in their overall plans for preschool services.
Under both the President's proposal and in the House bill,
States could offer the opportunity to coordinate their
preschool programs and child care programs with Head Start in
exchange for meeting certain accountability. States eligible to
participate must submit a State plan for approval to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services that addresses several
fundamental issues. Each State must indicate in its plan how it
would better coordinate Head Start with State-administered
preschool programs.
In addition, the State plan must address how it will work
to develop goals for all preschool children in the State and
devise an accountability system to determine whether children
are achieving the goals.
States must describe in their plan how they will maintain
the comprehensive array of child development services for
children supported by Head Start funds and guarantee that they
will continue to provide at least as much financial support for
State preschool programs and Head Start as they are currently
providing.
The President's proposal, and now the School Readiness Act,
share characteristics that are frequently misunderstood that I
would like to clarify.
First, neither the President nor the House is proposing to
block grant Head Start funding to States.
Second, States taking advantage of this option must make a
commitment to maintain the comprehensive services currently
available to Head Start children under the State plan as
supported with Head Start funds.
And third, States who choose this option and who have their
plans approved will still be accountable to the Federal
Government for their use of Head Start funds and for achieving
positive outcomes for children.
The President's plan and the School Readiness Act will not
allow States to supplant State preschool or any other State
funds with Head Start dollars. Neither would a State be
eligible of they reduced their State spending levels on early
childhood programs.
One of the reasons why the Head Start Program has remained
strong is that it adapts to accommodate the changing needs of
children and families. Most important, we cannot afford to have
children slip through the cracks that nonsystematic approaches
create. Our children and families deserve the best programs
that we can provide and that communities and States can
support.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Hill.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hill may be found in
additional material.]
The Chairman. Dr. Lyon.
Mr. Lyon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, for
the opportunity to come before you and talk to you about the
research that we have done at NIH, at the NICHD, with respect
to child development and how that interfaces with Head Start
and other early childhood programs.
To my left is Dr. Russ Whitehurst, director of the
Institute for Educational Sciences, who not only holds a role
in coordinating research nationally on this same topic but
himself is a national expert in early childhood education and
the study of such.
Over the past 15 years, we have learned that our preschool
children can acquire a great deal of information about
language, reading, and cognitive skills, more than we
originally thought. We know that preschool kids from
disadvantaged environments are significantly behind their more
affluent age-mates in linguistic skills essential for later
reading and language development.
Our research tells us that this is because youngsters
growing up in low-income environments engage in significantly
fewer literacy interactions, such as shared book-reading and
language interaction, such as child-adult discussions.
As Hart and Risley pointed out in their NICHD-supported
research with professional working class and welfare families,
the average child on welfare was having half as much experience
listening and speaking to parents--about 616 words per hour--as
the average working child--1,251 words per hour--and much less,
obviously, only one-third of the average professional family
youngster who is receiving 2,153 words per hour.
What does this mean? It means that our preschool programs
must provide children from low-income families with systematic
and evidence-based interactions to close these gaps. In many
ways, a comprehensive preschool program designed to help
children develop the necessary cognitive, language, early
reading, social and emotional competencies is their last hope
to eventually succeed in school.
In the next decade, if the American early care and
education system does not change, millions more children will
never realize their potential.
What makes this issue so compelling and troublesome is that
it does not have to be this way. We do know a great deal about
the foundational preschool abilities that predict success or
failure in reading in the early grades, and we are making
substantial progress in identifying the characteristics of
high-quality preschool programs that are able to help 3-and 4-
year-old children acquire these critical abilities.
We do know that the development of oral language
abilities--what I mean by that is vocabulary and an
understanding of grammar, the development of phonological
awareness--and what I mean by that is the understanding that
words are structured in smaller bits, either syllables or
sounds--and the development of print knowledge, that is,
knowing your letters and letter sounds and so on--development
of these capabilities during the preschool years is absolutely
essential for their development of later language and literacy
skills--absolutely essential.
These critical language and cognitive abilities can be
developed, by the way, in warm, nurturing environments that can
also enhance the development of emotional health and social
competency, as both the chairman and Senator Kennedy pointed
out.
Our research tells us that if preschool children are not
taught and do not learn these concepts and skills, they will
not be ready for school. Unfortunately, our research also
indicates that Head Start as traditionally structured and
implemented is not fully achieving its stated purpose of
promoting school readiness by enhancing the social and
cognitive development of low-income children.
Our studies continue to point to the fact that low-income
youngsters from Head Start programs perform significantly below
their more advantaged peers in language, reading and
mathematics once they enter school. This gap places a
tremendously unfair burden on the youngsters so that from the
very first day of kindergarten, they are already behind. This
is unfortunate, because with proper preschool instruction, many
can enter school on an equal footing with every other child.
As Dr. Zigler stated in 1996, ``Head Start's goal is and
always was to prepare children for school.'' Over the past
three decades, it was thought that ensuring adequate nutrition,
healthy bodies, emotional health, and social competencies would
lead to robust learning in schools. To be sure, and there is no
doubt--physical health, adequate nutrition, parental
involvement, family social services, and interactions to
develop emotional health and social competencies are necessary
to achieve this goal. But indeed they are not sufficient.
Social and emotional competence do not guarantee school
readiness and academic achievement. Children must also come to
kindergarten and first grade with strong foundational knowledge
of language, reading, mathematics, and science concepts
essential for success.
The goods news is that high-quality early childhood
education programs can enable preschoolers to develop these
fundamental language and cognitive concepts. The bad news is
that far too many children are spending time in preschool
settings, including many Head Start classrooms, that do not
meet a child's essential learning and cognitive needs and thus
neglect a very important aspect of child development.
If Head Start classrooms are to prepare children for entry
to and success in school, our research tells us that they must
foster language and emergent literacy skills. If we do not,
they will fail in school. If they fail to read and fail in
school, we will most likely condemn them to a life of continued
disadvantage.
We would like to put forth several recommendations for the
committee to consider.
No. 1, it is critical that early childhood programs
including Head Start provide a genuinely comprehensive set of
activities and educational opportunities to all children,
including those with disabilities, that are grounded in
developmental science. It is imperative that children's social,
emotional and cognitive growth be fostered on the basis of what
developmental science tells us about what preschool children
can learn, what they need to learn to succeed in school, and
how learning is most optimally supported. For too long, our
understanding, development, and implementation of preschool
programs have been based on philosophical beliefs, untested
assumptions, or out-of-date science.
Second, we must develop and implement a comprehensive
assessment and reporting system to ensure that Head Start
programs produce the positive outcomes that we know are
achievable.
This reporting system will, for the first time ever in the
history of Head Start, provide outcome data on all Head Start
programs and children, with and without disabilities, and thus
help to identify areas in need of continued improvement as well
as to document systematically the successes derived by Head
Start programs.
We owe it to the parents of Head Start to assess their
children's progress on a regular basis in ways that will help
guide the instruction and support of Head Start children.
And by the way, our data clearly tell us that youngsters
are not stressed or frightened by the assessment. They
typically have fun in a one-to-one interaction with an adult
who is allowing them to demonstrate their skills and mastery as
long as that adult understands how to gain rapport with the
youngster and capture the youngster's attention throughout the
assessment process.
No. 3, we must ensure that our youngest children are
learning from teachers who are highly competent in their
ability to help children develop social competencies, emotional
health, and the cognitive language, literacy, and mathematics
concepts critical to school success.
Numerous studies have shown that program quality and the
benefits to children with and without disabilities are
inextricably linked with staff educational background and
training. The significant benefits to children provided by the
Chicago CPC program and the CIRCLE program described in my full
testimony underscore this point.
All preschool teachers, for example, in the CPC program had
college degrees and certification in early childhood. While the
teachers in the CIRCLE program ranged in education from high
school degree through graduate degree, the systematic
mentoring, training, and follow-up training produced many
teachers of high quality. And by the way, that training was the
professional development that Commissioner Hill provided to
most Head Start teachers who signed up for that particular
program.
No. 4, it is essential that preschool programs be
coordinated with other programs providing early care and
education as well as with the curriculum framework and goals of
kindergarten and early public school programs.
Moreover, greater coordination and collaboration are needed
between State and Federal programs to ensure that all children
entering kindergarten are ready to learn. The value of a
highly-coordinated series of programmatic interactions from age
3 through the early grade school years can be seen in the
results, for example, produced by the Chicago CPC program. The
fact that the CPC program that is provided through the Chicago
public schools provides a continuity in children's learning
environments as well as appropriate levels of compensation for
teachers and staff. Other communities, as noted in the
Strengthening Head Start Report, which I would like to enter
into the record, provide good examples of programs located
outside the school system that are also able to provide
seamless services.
Finally, while many Head Start programs need to be
strengthened to ensure high-quality interactions to support and
develop physical, social, emotional and cognitive strengths in
an integrated and accountable fashion, it is clear that many
States do not have such high-quality programs in place. It will
be critical to identify these programs that are beacons of
light and expand and build on them with both local and State
funding. It will also be critical to identify low-performing
programs and provide the necessary technical assistance to
strengthen them--but in the end, to ensure that the health and
development of our children are the priorities, not the
continuation of ineffective programs.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Lyon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyon may be found in
additional material.]
The Chairman. Ms. Shaul.
Ms. Shaul. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss GAO's work on Head Start.
Head Start is nearly 40 years old and since its beginning has
served about 21 million children at a total cost of about $66
billion.
Head Start is a popular program, enjoying bipartisan
support, and many believe it to be one of the most successful
social programs.
Head Start's reauthorization provides an opportunity to
consider two major issues that my statement addresses--how Head
Start fits into today's environment of early childhood
programs, and what is known about the effectiveness of Head
Start.
My message today is that Head Start is one of a variety of
programs for young children, so coordination is important. And
my second message is that little is known about the
effectiveness of the Head Start Program.
Since Head Start's establishment in 1965, the early
childhood environment has changed greatly to meet the needs of
a changing society. Head Start is no longer the only major
provider of services for children from low-income families. It
now operates alongside other early childhood education and care
programs funded by Federal, State, and local governments.
This array of programs has been created in part to address
the increased number of low-income working mothers. Working
families often need full-day services, but some Federal
programs such as Head Start are mainly part-day services. So
full-day care requires coordination. However, it may be
challenging for programs to coordinate because of different
income eligibility requirements, different geographic
locations, and different program standards.
Although there is a substantial body of research on Head
Start that describes the program and its participants, little
is known about the effectiveness of the program on children's
progress. HHS currently has studies showing that the skills of
children who participate in Head Start do improve. However,
these studies cannot provide definitive evidence that the
improvement in children's skills is because they participated
in Head Start.
HHS has a study underway that will provide more definitive
information on Head Start's effectiveness, but according to
HHS, the results will not be available until 2006.
I would like to briefly elaborate on these two points.
First, funded at over $6 billion, Head Start is the largest
recipient of Federal funds for early education and care. Two
other major programs funded through HHS provide funds for child
care--the Child Care and Development Fund and the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, otherwise known as CCDF and
TANF.
The Department of Education also has programs like Even
Start and Title I that provide services for children under 5.
In addition to Federal programs, State and local governments
provide services for children of low-income families. For
example, the majority of States fund preschool programs, and
some supplement Head Start programs.
As the number of working parents has increased, so has the
need for full-time care. Congress mandated that Federal
programs coordinate with one another to provide greater access
for children of low-income families, and some progress has been
made. For example, Head Start programs are required to
coordinate with programs such as CCDF, and some programs report
sharing staff or sharing space.
Although there are some successes, gaps in care remain.
Barriers such as difference in program standards, different
geographic locations for local programs, and differing
eligibility requirements hinder coordination. For example, Head
Start's income eligibility standard requires that 90 percent of
the children come from families at or below the Federal poverty
level or eligible for public assistance, whereas CCDF funds may
be used to fund families with higher incomes.
Turning to my second point, although there is an extensive
body of research that describes the program, there is no
definitive national-level research about the effectiveness of
Head Start for the programs and families it serves.
In 1998, GAO testified about this lack of evidence, and
during the last reauthorization of Head Start, the Congress
required that HHS undertake an impact study with the completion
date of 2003. The Congress was specific in requiring that this
study use rigorous research methods.
Conducting impact evaluations is difficult and often
expensive, but the size and the significance of the Head Start
Program indicates that knowing about its effectiveness is
important.
The impact study now underway addresses two questions--how
Head Start affects the school readiness of children, and under
what circumstances does Head Start work best and for what types
of children.
The study is using a rigorous methodology that many
researchers consider to be the best way to determine a
program's effect--an experimental design whereby children are
randomly assigned to the Head Start Program or to a control
group that does not receive Head Start services. By comparing
outcomes for these two groups, one can show the effective of
the Head Start program rather than the effect of other
developmental influences on children.
This national impact study is budgeted at about $28 million
and will follow children through spring of their first grade.
According to HHS, as I said, this study will be completed in
2006.
Head Start is also conducting another study, FACES, which
is currently providing Head Start a variety of descriptive
information on a national sample of children. Study results
describe such things as children's progress, family
involvement, and teaching practices. For example, FACES
research published in 2003 shows that children enrolled in Head
Start demonstrated progress in early literacy and social
skills.
However, FACES does not compare the gains that Head Start
children have made to those who have not participated in Head
Start, and this lack of a control group limits HHS's ability to
determine whether the progress of these children would have
been made without the program.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be happy to answer any questions you might have on my statement
or on GAO's ongoing work on Head Start teachers and children's
cognitive development.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Shaul.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shaul may be found in
additional material.]
The Chairman. Ms. Wilkins.
Ms. Wilkins. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
speak to you this morning.
In this reauthorization of Head Start, you will consider a
number of issues. I am here today to address just one--
narrowing the school readiness gap between Head Start children
and more affluent children by ensuring that each Head Start
classroom is led by a teacher with a bachelor's degree and
specialized training in early education.
Head Start has provided millions of our most vulnerable
children with a foundation of integrated health, nutrition,
academic, and family support services. In doing so, it has
already narrowed the gap between these children and other
children. Nonetheless, the gap remains.
The effort to further narrow this gap must be focused on
the promotion of strong literacy skills. However, as important
as it is for Head Start to enhance the intellectual growth of
children, it must not do so by cutting back on the other
critical services that have provided the foundation of Head
Start's success.
Promoting literacy schools should be in addition to--not a
replace for--the elements of Head Start that have demonstrable
positive impacts on school readiness.
Vocabulary is a critical building block to later literacy.
Low-income 3-year-olds have vocabularies that are only about
half the size of the vocabularies of 3-year-olds living in our
most affluent families. To improve their vocabularies, we must
provide Head Start children with highly literate teachers who
themselves have rich and robust vocabularies. Data from the
National Adult Literacy Survey indicate that adults with only
AA degrees are twice as likely to have literacy skills below
the competent level as those with B.A. degrees.
Requiring Head Start teachers to have bachelor's degrees
rather than just associate degrees will increase the likelihood
that children will experience richer, more complex speech and
be able to build strong vocabularies needed for later reading
success.
The National Child Care Staffing Study found that teachers
with more formal education are more sensitive to their
children, and that children with more sensitive teachers
develop stronger literacy skills and higher language scores.
Well-educated teachers also foster strong positive social
and emotional development than do teachers with less formal
education. Teachers with more formal education are less harsh,
punitive, and critical of their students than are teachers with
less formal education, and they are more sensitive and
supportive of their students with less formal education.
The most renowned early childhood ps for low-income
children--the Perry Preschool Program, the Chicago Child-Parent
Center that Reid has already spoken about, and the Abecedarian
Program are all staffed by teachers with 4-year degrees. If we
hope Head Start will have the same high outcomes for its
children, we must staff Head Start with the same caliber of
teachers.
Many of the most respected research institutions in the
field support increasing the percentage of teachers with
bachelor's degrees in the Head Start Program.
Staffing preschool programs for low-income children with
well-educated teachers is not revolutionary. In fact, many
States are ahead of the Federal Government in this area. Half
the States with preschool programs already require that all of
their teachers have 4-year degrees.
There are some who will say that while it may be desirable
to staff Head Start with teachers with 4-year degrees, it is
impossible to meet this goal. We would suggest that they
consider the recent success of New Jersey. In 1998, the State
U.S. Supreme Court in Abbott versus Burke ordered that the
State establish preschool programs in the 30 highest-poverty
school districts in the State. The Court later required that
each of these programs be staffed by a lead teacher with a
bachelor's degree.
New Jersey has created and executed a plan that has moved
the percentage of bachelor's degree teachers in their preschool
programs from 35 percent to 80 percent in less than 4 years.
We strongly urge this committee to require that all Head
Start lead teachers have B.A.s as soon as possible. The House
action on this issue was significant and laudable. However, we
hope the Senate will build on this work by increasing the
percentage of teachers with B.A.s in Head Start classrooms and
making the resources available to educate, attract and retain
those teachers.
The Federal Government should demand higher levels of
education from Head Start teachers. However, as they attain
higher levels of education, they must be compensated at higher
levels. Head Start teachers with B.A.s currently earn only
about half of what public school kindergarten teachers earn.
Increased educational requirements without improved
compensation will lead to high teacher turnover rates, which
will undermine every effort to improve outcomes for Head Start
children.
We have estimated the cost of providing Head Start teachers
with scholarships and other supports needed to earn B.A.s to be
about $1 billion. An additional $3 billion over 5 years will
allow us to increase the salaries of about 64 percent of Head
Start lead teachers to levels comparable to the salaries of
kindergarten teachers. This increase would put us on a solid
path toward having and keeping well-educated Head Start
teachers in every classroom.
But program improvement is more than just about increased
investment. It is also a question of coordinated policy. This
committee will undoubtedly spend a great deal of time
discussing how Head Start programs can be coordinated with
State preschool programs. I am eager to participate in these
discussions. But I would remind you that to be successful in
this area, we also need to consider coordination between
Federal programs as well.
I look forward to continuing the dialogue on bachelor's
degrees and Head Start as this committee moves forward to work
on the Higher Education Act.
Head Start has been successful for so long because it has
evolved and incorporated the best research into its program and
practices. The single best way to continue to improve the
quality of Head Start is to ensure that every Head Start
classroom is led by a teacher with a bachelor's degree in
specialized education and early childhood education.
Thank you very much for allowing me to testify.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilkins may be found in
additional material.]
The Chairman. Ms. Santos.
Ms. Santos. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, and members of
the committee, good morning.
I am Janis Santos, executive director of the Holyoke-
Chicopee-Springfield Head Start Program. I also serve on the
board of directors of the National Head Start Association.
I would like to take just a moment to thank Senator Kennedy
for his many years of commitment and dedication to the Head
Start children in our country. In Massachusetts, we see him as
our champion for Head Start. I have a clear remembrance of him
visiting my preschool in Ludlow, MA and reading to our children
many years ago. So thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
Ms. Santos. And Senator Dodd, where I served as an interim
grantee in Connecticut for a short time, for your commitment to
the Head Start, and members of the committee this morning for
their commitment to early childhood education and Head Start.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
the thousands of successful Head Start programs across the
country and to discuss ways in which Head Start can be improved
for the 900,000 children who rely every day on this program for
their health, nutrition, and cognitive development.
You have heard a lot today about numbers and studies and
data. I bring a different perspective to the discussion--one
born of 30 years of experience working with some of the most
vulnerable children and families in my community. And for me,
the success of Head Start is not about numbers or data; it is
about making a difference in the life of one child and one
family at a time.
As executive director of the Holyoke-Chicopee-Springfield
Head Start Program for the past 24 years and as a Head Start
teacher for 6 years, I have dedicated my entire working life to
ensuring that Head Start provides high-quality, comprehensive
services to the poorest children in my community, that we work
collaboratively with other early childhood programs and with
the public school system, and that the program applies the best
thinking in early childhood research in our work with our
children.
I want to tell you a little bit about the children and
families that Head Start serves. My program is the second-
largest Head Start program in Massachusetts. We serve 1,200
children in Head Start and 40 infants and toddlers in our Early
Head Start program through centers located in three cities and
four towns.
We were honored to just be named the new grantee for the
migrant program in the State of Massachusetts and will begin
this summer serving migrant children.
Our mission statement tells our story. We are committed to
providing low-income children and their families with a beacon
of hope and a source of support for a brighter future. We
strive to do so by providing high-quality, comprehensive child
development services to enrolled children and empowering
families to achieve stability in their home environment.
Although the children we serve come from diverse
backgrounds, and the circumstances of their lives vary, they
bring to the classroom a common set of challenges which we seek
to meet in preparing them for their first experience in school.
My program is located in one of the most economically
disadvantaged regions in Massachusetts. Poverty and stress
indicators for the area consistently exceed State and often
national percentages. Most of the children in our program come
from single-parent household with incomes below the poverty
level. Three-quarters of the parents have a high school
education or less. For many of the children and families,
English is not the first language. And finally, too many of the
children in our classrooms have witnessed or experienced
domestic or community violence.
For these children and families, Head Start is a safe haven
where they encounter the positive experience that help build
the foundation that will serve them throughout their school
careers and foster curiosity, an interest in learning, and the
ability to pay attention in the classroom.
Head Start insists upon a comprehensive range of services
because we know that preparing children for school is about
more than just teaching letters or numbers.
Consider the example of my student who was part of the
witness protection program because he saw his father shot and
killed in his apartment in an incident in which the child
himself was injured. He was so traumatized by this experience
that before we could even begin the process of preparing him to
learn, we had to get him the mental health services that
allowed him to move beyond the trauma that no young child
should ever have to face.
I am so pleased to report that because of this intervention
in Head Start, the child is now thriving in elementary school.
For another child in our program, poor nutrition and the
lack of good dental hygiene resulted in tooth decay so severe
that all of his teeth needed to be pulled. Not only did this
painful tooth decay affect his ability to learn; it adversely
impacted his speech and his self-esteem.
Through the intervention of the Head Start staff and dental
services provided by the program, this boy was put on the road
to improvement.
I have literally hundreds and hundreds of anecdotes like
this in terms of the comprehensive services that have made the
difference in the lives of so many Head Start children and
families, but I know you do not have the time to listen to all
of them today.
Head Start fully recognizes and appreciates the importance
of serving the whole child. However, that does not mean that
literacy is shortchanged in the process. In fact, I can tell
you from firsthand experience that Head Start focuses intensely
on literacy and numeracy. In my own program, we work closely
with the public school system and the university system to
design and implement a literacy program that fully prepares our
children for kindergarten. In fact, we are often told by
kindergarten teachers and school officials that they can
recognize Head Start graduates when they enter kindergarten
because they are better-prepared than similarly situated peers.
We repeatedly are told that our Head Start children enter
kindergarten well-prepared, with good reading readiness skills,
social skills, and the ability to pay attention.
I find it curious that this reauthorization has sparked
such an interest in the issue of literacy. This may be a new
focus for some of the people in this room, but it is not for
Head Start. In my own program, we have stressed pre-reading
skills and nurtured an interest in books for decades now.
It is true that in the course of the last several years, we
have learned a great deal more about the cognitive development
of children and have refined and renewed our emphasis on
literacy. In my program, we are fortunate to have the resources
of a local university that helped us design and implement
teaching tools to boost the literacy and numeracy outcomes of
our children. This partnership with the local education system
proved beneficial when we were searching for ways to improve
the pre-math skills of our students. The university worked with
us to design a course of instruction that has made a tremendous
difference in our ability to teach the new concepts.
Indeed, Head Start is the first of all childhood programs
to assess whether the students are learning and the progress
being made in their cognitive development. Toward that end, we
assess our students three times a year to determine whether
they are benefitting from the lessons that we are teaching. And
as part of our effort to provide a smooth transition to
kindergarten for the children in our Head Start classroom, we
provide parents a copy of their children's development
assessment--or profile, as we call it. This profile gives
parents and, with their permission, the kindergarten teacher a
summary of the child's accomplishments while attending our
program.
In my remaining short time, I would like to address a few
issues directly related to the reauthorization of Head Start.
First, I strongly encourage this committee to reject any
form of block grants no matter how limited. Absent the program
performance standards that ensure quality, comprehensive
services to Head Start children and their parents, the program
as we know it will cease to exist.
Second, there has been a great deal of attention on the
issue of teacher qualifications. I am a big proponent of
improving the quality of instruction in the Head Start
classroom. In fact, I insist that our program continually
strive to make itself stronger.
In 1976, our program required that each Head Start teacher
have a bachelor's degree in early childhood education. We had
to change this requirement in 1980 to add an associate's degree
because of the high turnover of teachers as a result of our
inability to pay salaries competitive with those of the local
public school system. At that time, we determined that we
gained few benefits with more qualified teachers if those same
teachers stayed for such a short period of time.
I would encourage you to learn from our experience and
provide the new funding necessary to attract and retain these
more qualified teachers who otherwise will be lost to the
public school system where the salaries are higher.
Third, we know that what we can accomplish with our
students and families in the short time they are part of the
Head Start family is limited. For some students, they are part
of our program for just 9 months. And while much more can be
achieved during that period, we know that so much more could be
accomplished if Early Head Start were expanded to serve more
babies and toddlers.
We believe it is time to make a serious commitment to
providing seamless services to children prenatal to the age of
5. To accomplish this goal, we propose that the Early Head
Start set-aside by increased and that Head Start grantees be
given the flexibility to provide services to children prenatal
to 5.
Finally, I would like to say a word about collaboration. I
gather that, based on the testimony here today, collaboration
and coordination does not work as well in other places as it
does in Massachusetts. We collaborate with and have
partnerships with dozens and dozens of other programs,
including the State government, local government, school
districts, and so on. I encourage you to look at these areas
where collaboration and coordination is working and to
replicate our experience across the country.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Kennedy, thank you for your
consideration. I believe that Head Start does need to be a
loving and nurturing place for at-risk children. At the same
time, we should be demanding in our expectations of children
and teachers. I insist upon this in my program, and so should
others.
I look forward to working with you to move to reauthorize
Head Start.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Santos.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Santos may be found in
additional material.]
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I will not be
able to stay to ask questions, but I would ask unanimous
consent that my statement be in the record.
My first job out of graduate school in social work was
working as the social worker for a Head Start program. It was a
big idea, I think it has had big results, and I look forward to
working with you on a big bipartisan effort to reauthorize it.
Thank you, and thank you to all the dedicated people here.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator, and of course your
statement will be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Mikulski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mikulski
I want to thank Chairman Gregg, Senator Kennedy, Senator
Alexander, and Senator Dodd for calling this hearing. I also
want to thank the witnesses: Windy Hill, Dr. Reid Lyon, Dr.
Marnie Shaul, Amy Wilkins, and Janice Santos. I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Head Start had been one of the more successful Federal
programs. It's not perfect, and I agree we can improve it. But
we can't let reform be a code word for dismantling Head Start.
I am concerned that the Bush plan will turn Head Start into
slow start or no start.
Head Start is for the poorest children. 74 percent of Head
Start families are at or below the poverty level. These
children are often the farthest behind in learning to read and
learning the alphabet. Yet Head Start makes a difference. In 1
year, these students go from the 16th percentile in vocabulary
to almost the national norm.
And Head Start does so much more. It brings children to the
doctor to get immunizations or hearing checks. It helps parents
get on the right track. Many parents become Head Start teachers
and go back to school to get their degrees. It provides
nutritious meals for children who might otherwise go hungry.
I'm a social worker. I've seen first hand children whose lives
were changed by a simple hearing aid. It can make all the
difference.
Head Start is working well. I think we can aim higher--
especially in academics. Yet it will take a serious investment
not a block grant and a prayer.
Currently, only 60 percent of eligible pre-school children
are in Head Start, and only 3 percent of eligible infants and
toddlers are in Early Head Start. In Maryland, about 25 percent
of eligible children age zero to 5 years are in Head Start and
Early Head Start.
We should expand Head Start to serve all children. Yet the
Bush Budget requested only $148 million more for Head Start.
That's the same amount provided in the fiscal year 2004 House
and Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations bills. It's not even enough
to cover inflation. This means communities have to make tough
choices between two bad options: diluting the quality of Head
Start, or shutting the doors on some eligible children.
The Bush Head Start plan does nothing to solve this
problem. It tries to avoid the issue by putting the tough
decisions and responsibility on local communities. In my own
State of Maryland, we are facing this kind of impossible
choice. For years, the Montgomery County contributed $16
million of its own money to run a very high quality Head Start
program. But they still didn't have enough money to serve to
all the low-income children in Head Start. Recently, Montgomery
County proposed using its money for a Pre-K program that would
serve more children. But, they also proposed making cut-backs
and sacrifices. They proposed cutting back on comprehensive
health and family services for the new Pre-K classes. They
proposed shortening Pre-K classes, so teachers wouldn't be able
to accomplish as much.
And they proposed reducing the number of children in Head
Start by almost half.
The Bush Budget forced Montgomery County into this
situation by not providing the resources to serve all children
in Head Start. Yet the Bush Head Start block grant plan won't
help. It enables communities to make these choices. But they
are still bad choices between bad options, because the Bush
Budget is inadequate. The Bush plan tells communities, ``You
must sacrifice quality for quantity. You have to make all the
tough choices, because the Federal Government won't help you.''
The Republican plan is contradictory. On the one hand, it
calls for flexibility and block grants. On the other hand, it
adds new mandates without providing the resources. The House
bill requires that 50 percent of Head Start teachers have
Bachelor's degrees by 2008. This will cost at least $2 million.
Yet the House bill doesn't provide resources. It authorizes a
mere $202 million more, which barely covers inflation.
I think we should improve teacher qualifications. I think
Head Start children should have the best teachers available.
Yet I am very concerned about more unfunded mandates. Look at
what's happening with No Child Left Behind. Are there even
enough qualified teachers available, especially in rural areas?
You can't get more for less. You get what you pay for. A
block grant is not the answer. Federal investment is the
answer. The Bush Budget requested only $148 million more for
Head Start. That's what the fiscal year 2004 House and Senate
Labor/HHS Appropriations bills provide. It's not even enough to
cover inflation. We need to increase Federal funds so that all
eligible children can benefit from high quality Head Start. We
need Federal leadership to improve academic standards in Head
Start and to help coordinate between Head Start and public
schools. We need a dedicated Federal investment to help recruit
and retain qualified teachers. Thank you.
The Chairman. We do have a very strong turnout of member
Senators today, so we will limit the questioning to 5 minutes,
and I hope people can stick to that so everybody can get their
time in.
Let me begin. First, I want to thank the panel. I think the
presentations were excellent, and I think it reinforced a lot
of the issues that we as a committee are going to have to be
looking at, primarily, first, Ms. Santos' point, which is that
there are a lot of very wonderful things being done by Head
Start, and we want to make sure that in the reauthorization we
do not upset what is being done well in order to get on to
trying to do other things even better, and that will certainly
be a focus of our committee, making sure that the social issues
and the nutritional issues and the socialization issues are
maintained as an aggressive element of Head Start.
I am not trying to underplay that, but I believe the focus
of the reauthorization is going to be around the issue of how
we engender a stronger academic experience in the Head Start
Program, maybe not in the Holyoke area, where you seem to have
a really positive program, but to have consistency throughout
the system. I think that that really is the core element of
issues that we are going to be dealing with in the
reauthorization, although there are some other tangential
issues like what the States' role is.
Focusing on the question of assessment and academics, I
would be interested in knowing whether we actually know if
there are some criteria or a curriculum or a standard that Head
Start centers should be trying to get to with these children. I
mean what level of numerology, what level of identification of
the alphabet or phonics--there is the 10-letter rule that I
guess is still in place technically, but hopefully, everybody
is ignoring it and getting on to all the letters of the
alphabet. I would be interested in hearing from Dr. Lyon or Ms.
Hill or others as to is there an identifiable academic standard
that we should be trying to seek for children in this age
group.
Mr. Lyon. I believe there is. I believe that we, under the
best conditions and implementation of those conditions, move
Head Start youngsters to the average range as the enter
kindergarten.
We do have ongoing studies now showing that if we have
teachers in place who understand the critical kinds of things
kids need to know to be able to succeed in school, our
youngsters' development is enhanced dramatically.
We know from both Dr. Whitehurst's research as well as
other research--and he will talk to this--that the specific
kinds of things that kids need to know in preschool can in fact
be brought right up to the average range, and that particular
level of development in word-level knowledge, in vocabulary, in
phonological awareness, and in print knowledge clearly predicts
downstream performance in school.
We do know that a condition where children from preschool
or Head Start who are entering kindergarten are in fact moving
toward a program that not only reinforces the abilities learned
in preschool, but the preschool development in fact meshes
quite well with the kindergarten curriculum and the first grade
curriculum.
So there are a number of conditions that need to be in
place no doubt within the context of a comprehensive program--
meaning these kids have to be physically squared away, they
have to be well-nourished, the parents, to the best of our
ability, need to be involved, and we need to be developing
social and emotional competencies systematically but
synergistically with the more cognitive language-oriented
capabilities.
When we do that well, we clearly have gems or beacons of
light where we can move most kids to near or the average range.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Whitehurst, briefly, because my time is up. Please go
ahead.
Mr. Whitehurst. I would just add to that that the criterion
should really be, if not a head start, an even start, that
children who start school in the normal range, knowing the
things that other children do as they enter the kindergarten
classroom, are much more likely to succeed academically. Those
children who do not have those skills are at very high risk of
failure. We can predict reading failure at the end of first
grade with 85 percent accuracy from knowledge of what children
know as they enter kindergarten.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
Ms. Santos, it is wonderful to hear you again, and I think
anyone who listens to you and ever has the chance to visit your
program up there understands that what you have told us here in
the committee is alive and well in the faces of those children
and the well-being of those children. After a lifetime of
commitment, we should take your assessment about what is needed
for those children and the way to strengthen Head Start with a
great deal of attention because it is based upon an enormous
amount of personal caring in your own situation and a great
deal of knowledge and sort of around-the-clock working at that
program. So I am so glad that you have come to help us today.
I was going to ask you about your ideas and suggestions for
strengthening the program; you summarized those very briefly--
that the earlier the intervention, the better; the continuation
of help and support for children from zero all the way up to 5
with good-quality programs; continuing to march toward quality;
people working with these children and finding ways to maintain
them so that they are not moving into the educational system
unprepared. And I want to come back and ask Ms. Wilkins to give
a reaction to ideas about how best to do that.
But time is limited, and I would like to ask Windy Hill--in
reviewing what the States have done, the real authoritative
studies have been the Gilligan and Zigler studies that have
been done at Yale, and they indicate that the States have not
had such a good record themselves, looking at the quality
programs. The Zigler study says only three States have
completed an analysis relating classroom quality indicators to
the program--South Carolina, Michigan, and Kentucky. Only three
States have even looked at it.
Ms. Hill. Well----
Senator Kennedy. Let me just finish. In their conclusions,
they say that ``Considerably more needs to be done about the
effectiveness of State-funded preschool programs.''
Effectively, not enough is known about the effectiveness of the
State programs. And in the final conclusion, it says, ``These
positive findings are encouraging for State-funded preschool
programs, but on the whole appear to be no more or less
encouraging than the findings for other large-scale preschool
programs for low-income children such as Head Start, which
often suffer from similar methodology limitation in their
evaluations.'' They make a big point about the methodology and
evaluations, and effectively, they are concluding that the
States are no more or less effective than the large-scale
programs like Head Start. We only have a smattering of States
that have done this.
What possible sense does it make to roll the dice and give
the Head Start Program to the States?
Ms. Hill. Well, I appreciate the research of Dr. Zigler and
others in this area. Having been in Head Start for so many
years--8 years in a local program, 2 years as a board chairman,
2 years as a policy council chairman, a parent, a child, and a
volunteer for several years--I think that early on, early in
the 1990's, we began to recognize that not enough was known
about Head Start, and people really began to look very closely
at its success.
It is true that it does a tremendous amount in the area of
comprehensive services, and we are beginning to see early on
that States recognize that there is value in adding that
comprehensive array of services for children.
It really is a situation where several States have taken
the leadership role in showing us that they can and will invest
in pre-K programs in a way that models the experiences and the
values of Head Start.
The goal is to have more States do what States like
Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Georgia have
done and to bring that into some kind of alignment, an
integrated, coordinated system that takes the best of Head
Start and to begin to blend and to mold in a way that all
children in the State experience the important early care and
intervention.
Senator Kennedy. I have just 50 seconds left, and I am
going to try to get in two questions.
Dr. Lyon, very quickly, the administration has proposed a
reporting system that would test the outcomes on two domains of
child development--language and literacy, and preschool
program. Head Start obviously measures children's outcomes
three times a year in language, literacy, math, creative arts,
cooperative skills, social relationships, and physical health.
Give me your evaluation of each approach, briefly.
And then, finally, Ms. Wilkins, if you would respond to Ms.
Santos' concept about how you are going to help keep good-
quality teachers, just briefly, I would appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lyon. Senator Kennedy, the fact is we are behind the
curve on the development of appropriate assessments for a
number of the domains within the comprehensive array provided
by Head Start. The first step was to try to carve out from the
1998 list of cognitive indicators those domains that we had
good measures on--that is, measures with sufficient reliability
and validity and all those kinds of things--to be able to
determine if we were doing well by the kids.
Socially and emotionally, we are even further behind the
curve in the sense that the measure available typically assess
pathology, social pathology and emotional pathology. That puts
us in a position to have to develop new measures that are more
proactive and pro-social and pro-emotional.
We are in the process, with Dr. Whitehurst, the Institute
for Educational Sciences, and NIH, of developing a fairly
massive early childhood education research program which
includes the development of measures across all of these
domains.
To answer your question, we do not have pro-social and pro-
emotional measures that can actually give us a good look at how
well the kids are doing. What we can do is identify those
youngsters who are at risk for attention deficit disorder,
other forms of psychopathology, and so forth and so on. That is
not good enough, but what we can say is we are working hard to
fill out the comprehensive need for these assessments in the
areas you are interested in.
Ms. Wilkins. It is an easy answer, Senator. The first thing
that needs to happen is that the salary scales in Head Start
need to ensure that compensation is closely related to the
level of formal education that the teacher has, so that as the
teacher increases the amount of education she has, her salary
will increase.
And the second thing you need to do is give the Head Start
centers the money to pay the teachers. Ms. Santos had to lower
her educational requirements because she could not afford to
keep the teachers. If Congress finds the money so that she can
pay wages that are competitive to what teachers with B.A.
degrees can earn teaching in public schools, you will be able
to keep the teachers.
Ms. Santos. That is right.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
the witnesses for coming today.
We all have a story, and I have one, and a comment and a
question about coordination. My story is this. I grew up in a
county at the edge of the Great Smokey Mountains, where my
mother was literally the only preschool education teacher in
the county, and she taught in a converted garage in our back
yard. There were 25 3- and 4-year-olds and 25 5-year-olds in
the afternoon, and everyone who could afford it paid $25 a
month so their child could have that advantage. We learned
letters, numbers, music, and we all had an advantage. So I know
the advantage, and we have learned so much more about it since
then.
My comment is that I think the President has done us a
service by putting on the agenda, as only a President can, the
concerns of school readiness, of accountability, and of
coordination. That is where a lot of the discussion was this
morning. Many of you have already been thinking about those
things, but for the President to focus on those three things is
a help as we think about reauthorizing Head Start.
I think he is also wise to suggest that we should think
about what role the States can add to the Head Start Program,
but I do not think we should let the whole train run off the
track because we have differences of opinion about just how the
States should be involved. I would like to see us focus on the
first three and do as much as we can on school readiness, on
accountability, and on coordination, and I will have some other
suggestions about how States might be involved which I would
like to share with members of the committee and get their
reactions as time goes along.
Now, my question is this, on coordination. In the last 10
years, 42 States have started investing pretty heavily in pre-
K, and it is now up to $1.7 billion a year. There are 69
Federal programs that deal with early childhood; that is $18
billion a year, of which Head Start is nearly $7 billion a
year.
Can any of you identify, or is there a consensus about or
is a listing of the 19,000 Head Start centers around the
country that do the best job of coordinating services with the
other State programs, the 69 Federal programs, and with the
public schools and private schools into which the Head Start
graduate? Are there any that we ought to be spotlighting and
paying attention to?
Ms. Hill. There are certainly programs that are model
programs, like there are States who are beginning to look
across programs----
Senator Alexander. Have they been listed somewhere so that
we can know them?
Ms. Hill. We do have a list of those who are, I think,
exemplary, such as Ms. Santos' program, where we begin to hear
more about how they are coordinating and linking.
Unfortunately, the list is not as long as the list of those who
are not coordinated and not integrated.
We can develop for you a list of the ones that have been
recognized in the last year as having strong programs, but
again, it will be a shorter list than the list of those
programs that are not----
Senator Alexander. Are there things we can do in Congress
to make it easier for a Head Start center director who is in
Holyoke or Maryville, TN and who looks up at this array of
Federal programs and wonders how do I find them all, how do I
figure out whether they are available to my children?
I talk with many of my constituents who just do not know
how to get through the maze to find all those--I am sure that
is the Congress' fault, but what can we do about it?
Ms. Hill. Congress is to be commended, because in the 1998
reauthorization as well as in the 1994 reauthorization, there
was quite a bit of language added to encourage, promote, to
move programs to greater coordination in local communities as
well as across programs.
Unfortunately, that language is not sufficient to bring
about the type of integration and coordination that we have
seen to be most effective when you look across programs across
the State, when you look for needy children in all pockets of a
community as opposed to a particular catchment area.
So I think Congress has done a tremendous amount to this
date, but the authority to bring Statewide coordination does
not exist within the existing statute.
Senator Alexander. Stepping back if you can, Ms. Hill, from
the President's specific proposal, what is the major value, or
what can the States bring to the table? What is the most
important thing the States could do--if our objectives are
school readiness, accountability, and coordination, what is the
most important thing that the States could bring?
Ms. Hill. Well, to continue what the States are already
doing, recognizing that our ability to provide comprehensive
services rests within State governments. We do not pay for
medical and dental; we rely on Medicaid and Medicare
administered through the State. We do not pay for dental; we
rely on SCHIP. We look to our local community partners to link
families to needed services, whether it is crisis intervention,
domestic violence.
So there is already inherent in the work of the States a
great deal of support for Head Start. What we can begin to do
is to make it easier to coordinate across those programs
through some master plan.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Ms. Shaul. Could I just also add that Congress has funded
the Head Start collaboration centers in States which have had
as their focus enhancing collaboration among the childhood
programs within States.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. I would like to look at it on a little
broader scale. Certainly, Head Start has been wonderful to help
people with lower ability, compensation, etc. On the other
hand, in the late eighties and early nineties, we discovered,
and the world discovered, that children ages 2, 3, 4, and 5
ought to have a good start and that the ability of our Nation
would increase with that.
Now we see, because of the economic situation, that early
childhood education is being unfunded by the States because
they do not have sufficient funds. So it seems to me that we
ought to be trying to look at all of these together and to get
the money available for these schools, whether it is Head Start
or whether it is early childhood education, because if we just
turn it over to the States, if they are cutting out on early
education now, it is hard for me to see how they are going to
handle both and do a good job at either of them.
Ms. Hill. Well, interestingly enough, 2210 certainly takes
that into consideration, the House bill, as well as the
President's proposal in that it is not about supplanting or
driving dollars into State coffers for purposes other than care
for young children and early care and education.
Under the House bill and the President's proposal, the
States must use Head Start dollars to support Head Start
children, and it must also lock in its spending for preschool
programs so that if it is a State that is eligible and meets
certain threshold requirements, it would be required to
maintain its Head Start spending, maintain the number of
children currently served, and also maintain its State
preschool. So there is protection within the School Readiness
Act to ensure that what you just described does not happen. I
think the strength in that is that it is not just services, but
it is the comprehensive services that have made Head Start this
premier program in the country.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Santos.
Ms. Santos. I would like to comment on that. I served on
the Massachusetts Early Childhood Advisory Council for about 15
years, and I have a good handle on the early childhood programs
in Massachusetts, and I remember clearly that it was just over
the past years that the Department of Education got involved in
the business of early childhood education. During that time
that I was on the Council, they were struggling trying to
develop standards and actually used the Head Start standard as
the model for developing their own.
So I am very much aware of what the early childhood
programs are in Massachusetts, and I would say that Head Start
is the model. The comprehensiveness of the program, the high
quality of the performance standards should be the model for
States for their early childhood programs. I know that many
educators have said that, and I believe that we should keep the
program Federal to local and be the model for our States in
early childhood education because of the comprehensiveness and
the high-quality standards that we provide to children in all
areas.
Senator Jeffords. I just think we ought to be looking at
the total picture and see how Head Start fits in, so we do not
disadvantage situations by funding problems from one to the
other.
Ms. Hill. Well, it is interesting that in the 1993-1994
Head Start Quality and Expansion Advisory Committee report, one
of the things that was recognized early on was that Head Start
has to become more a part of its community and its State, and
it cited it as one of the recommendations. I think what you are
seeing in the School Readiness Act and the President's proposal
is an acknowledgment that the glass is half full, and that it
is important to acknowledge the great need to have Head Start
be a part of its broader community, that children are ready to
learn, and the alignment occurs between Head Start and its
other partners.
But this has the benefit of more than just Head Start. It
has always been that national laboratory. Here is our
opportunity, and it is an opportunity that we take at no risk
to losing Head Start services, since you would maintain the
current level of services being provided, maintain the same
number of children, you protect the Federal funds, you avoid
the supplanting by States--it is an opportunity without risk to
begin moving toward a 21st century Head Start.
The Chairman. Senator Dodd.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank all
of our witnesses today for participating and you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was planning to introduce a
pretty comprehensive bill on Head Start with Senator Kennedy,
but at your request, and I appreciate it, we are going to delay
doing that for a while to see if we may not be able to work out
something.
So I am not going to be placing down a bill before the
committee today for their consideration, but I would like to
briefly share with the committee some of the concepts and ideas
that we are thinking about, at any rate, for the committee's
consideration and for the witnesses to respond to.
First, Dr. Lyon, we certainly agree that literacy and
issues related to it ought to be enhanced if we can. There is
not much of a debate up here about that. The concern we have is
that Head Start would become primarily a literacy program and
would disregard the other important functions which are
absolutely necessary for any hope of a child learning. You may
in the laboratory be able to talk about a child acquiring
literacy skills, but in the absence of having the other kinds
of medical and social requirements that Head Start places such
importance on, it seems to us rather difficult to achieve that.
So I will not go through that with you.
And by the way, Ms. Wilkins, I want to commend you, because
we also include in our legislation the idea that we increase
the educational levels of those who work in Head Start. The
difference between our proposal and the House proposal, at
least as it is presently suggested, is that we pay for it,
which you have got to do. There is no point in having this
stuff if you cannot pay for it. If we are going to saddle
States with huge deficits today and expect them to pick up the
cost of that, we might as well not write it, in my view. So I
will not dwell on that.
To my colleague, Senator Alexander, who raises some very
good points, we also suggest in this proposal that there be
greater coordination, which I think is extremely important
there. It will give States a greater role in coordination and
collaboration, which is I think one goal the States can really
help us achieve, among early care and education programs. It
would require Head Start programs to align curricula and
classroom practice with early learning and school readiness
standards and strengthen accountability among Head Start
programs to ensure they are complying with Head Start
performance standards. So we invite you to sit with us as well
as we try to work out a bill that we can have bipartisan
support on.
Let me get to the standards issue if I can with you, Ms.
Hill, because I am troubled by what is in the House bill and
what the President is proposing.
First of all on the block grant, you said, and I quote from
page 9 of your testimony, that ``neither the President nor the
House proposal allows States to do away with the comprehensive
services currently available through Head Start.''
In my reading of the bill, however, nowhere do I see that
the Head Start performance standards must be retained by any
State in order to participate in the pilot. In fact, the
language on page 59, lines 5 through 8 of the bill, and I
quote, says that ``The State standards generally meet or exceed
the standards''--``generally meet or exceed''--``the State
standards that ensure the quality and effectiveness of programs
operated by Head Start agencies.'' ``Generally meet''--that
causes a lot of us a great deal of pause. What does the word
``generally'' mean? Does it mean on average? Does it mean that
some standards should be in, but not all? Does it mean, like in
horseshoes, that if you get them close, that may qualify, or
not? So we have a great concern, and we wonder whether or not
you might be willing to strike the word ``generally'' and just
say flat out that if you are going to have any of these
programs, they must meet Head Start standards--and not have an
escape clause like ``generally'' in the wording.
What is your response to that question?
Ms. Hill. In terms of the ``generally meet or exceed''--you
know, I am the neophyte here; this is my first hearing and my
first reauthorization----
Senator Dodd. Isn't it fun?
Ms. Hill [continuing]. It is quite exciting. But I have
noticed that language in State often differs from language in
rules and regulations. And whether ``generally'' stays in or
not, I can tell you that Head Start programs generally meet or
exceed performance standards now.
Senator Dodd. All right. I will not quibble with you here.
I am not expecting you to give an answer for the
administration; you will have to check. But the point is the
word ``generally'' does give us a lot of pause because it is
unclear, it is vague, to put it mildly.
Second, I want to pick up the point--Senator Jeffords
raised the issue, and Senator Kennedy did as well--just going
back to the States, we have put up this chart--and I know you
cannot read this, but we will provide you with it--but just to
give you an idea, over the last few months, the number of
States that have actually cut back on early childhood learning
programs has been significant. The deficits are huge. The $2
billion that the States have been spending in this area has
been reduced pretty significantly.
The GAO--and we will provide this for you as well--
enumerates the amount of cutbacks that are occurring in early
childhood programs across the country.
But second, I think it is important to note as well that
where there have been--and this is prior to the cuts, again
going back to the Gilligan study that Senator Kennedy talked
about done at the Bush Center at Yale--if you start looking at
some of the areas where Head Start plays such an important
role, that is, dealing with the whole child and all of his or
her needs, only 18 percent of States provide family
caseworkers; home visits, 25 percent; dental referrals, only 40
percent of the States do it; nutritious meals, only 50 percent
of the States provide any meals at all; mental health, about 55
percent of States provide it; vision and hearing, 58 percent;
only 65 percent of States require immunizations for Head Start.
So when we start talking about the State programs and
understanding that cuts are occurring, it gets very, very weak
in some of the areas that are absolutely critical for Head
Start children to receive the kind of support they deserve and
need.
I wonder if you might comment on some of these State
figures.
Ms. Hill. Well, it is important to note that the changes in
States in terms of providing pre-K services have only happened
since about 1990, maybe as early as 1985. They certainly have
not been on this path as long as Head Start has, since 1965;
and it was not until 1972 that Head Start performance standards
were put in place to help guide us through this process.
So that States are beginning to make the effort to provide
in their pre-K programs the kinds of things that add value to
children.
Senator Dodd. Don't you acknowledge that these cuts are
occurring? Are you not aware that cuts are occurring across the
country?
Ms. Hill. Certainly the President's proposal in the School
Readiness Act takes into account that States will deal with
budget restraints, and that being the case, only those States
that are able to make a commitment to Head Start--that is
almost equal to Head Start--at least 50 percent of the Federal
investment; States that have standards and are willing to
implement those standards Statewide. In addition to that, at
the end of the process, if they are approved by the Secretary,
they must commit to 5 percent additional in terms of State
support.
So Title II of the School Readiness Act is not designed for
every State, but it is designed to allow those States who are
ready, who can meet the threshold, to become partners--a
greater partner--in services to Head Start.
Senator Dodd. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panel today.
Let me go back to the issue of what will this all cost. Ms.
Hill, the House bill calls for 50 percent of Head Start
teachers to have a B.A. by 2008. How much additional funding
would that require?
Ms. Hill. Our estimate internally is that the cost for
meeting the requirements of the School Readiness Act is about
$150 million. I think it is important to note that since 1999,
we have added about $1.7 billion into the base of Head Start,
and the majority of those funds has gone into the quality money
that pays for teacher education. We have met the mandate for AA
by 2003 at 50 percent.
Senator Reed. So your model presumes a competitive salary
level for a B.A. in the localities across the country, and you
think that is going to be an additional $150 million?
Ms. Hill. No. The average salary currently being paid to 4-
year degreed teachers in Head Start is $25,600. Currently, we
have about 29 percent of Head Start teachers with a B.A. We
need about 12,000 more to meet the language in the School
Readiness Act.
Senator Reed. Ms. Wilkins, I think you have a comment.
Ms. Wilkins. Yes. We have estimated a very different cost
for meeting the requirements of the House bill. The Trust for
Early Education estimates that in order to pay the additional
teachers to meet the House requirement, competitive salaries
with kindergarten teachers, it would cost about $2 billion over
5 years.
We have also estimated that to provide the supports--that
is, the scholarships and other supports--to meet the House
requirement, we would need about $1 billion over 5 years.
Senator Reed. So we are talking about a range of estimates.
[Laughter.] But these things, in my view, tend to get more
expensive rather than less expensive, so I would lean somewhere
in the middle or even toward Ms. Wilkins' estimates.
In addition, the House bill has put a cap on the training
and technical assistance at 2 percent just at the time when we
are trying to enhance the skill levels of teachers and improve
the quality. Isn't that counterproductive?
Ms. Hill. Well, I think that the House bill, the School
Readiness Act, is designed to allow the Secretary to have some
authority, some discretion, to use dollars to add more
children. When T&TA needs are addressed in a way that satisfies
the language of the Head Start Act and the needs of programs,
any additional funds would be used to bring more children into
Head Start centers.
Senator Reed. Well, certainly in terms of the training, it
is not discretion with a cap; you are capped out at 2 percent.
Let me turn to another issue because the time is short.
About how many religious-sponsored entities participate in Head
Start throughout the country?
Ms. Hill. Our latest data is about 115 faith-based
organizations.
Senator Reed. One hundred fifteen; and how long have they
participated in Head Start?
Ms. Hill. The extent varies. It ranges from programs that
were in at the beginning of Head Start in 1965 to some that are
within 2, 3, 5 years of beginning service delivery.
Senator Reed. And in all these years from the beginning,
they have been required to meet the anti-discrimination aspects
in hiring staff; is that correct?
Ms. Hill. Whatever the current language in the statute at
that time, that is what they were required to meet.
Senator Reed. And that has not proven an obstacle to these
religious organizations that participate?
Ms. Hill. Well, I might point out that it is 115 out of
1,500 grantees and 400 delegates.
Senator Reed. But has it been an obstacle to their
participation?
Ms. Hill. It is my understanding that many faith-based
organizations have attempted to apply to serve Head Start
children but have not been successful for a variety of reasons.
We know that Head Start is rooted in faith-based
organizations, and elimination of barriers is a goal of the
administration by adding language----
Senator Reed. But you are begging the question. Has it been
a barrier to participation for the 115? Obviously, that is a
significant number that are participating today.
Ms. Hill. Well, I think it sounds like a small number
compared to the number of grantees currently providing services
to Head Start.
Senator Reed. Dr. Lyon, have you done any research on the
relative difference or relative efficacy of unified religious
staff teaching reading versus diversified religious staff
teaching reading?
Mr. Lyon. No, we have not.
Senator Reed. Wouldn't that be important in terms of making
decisions, particularly decisions that involve fundamental
civil rights?
Mr. Lyon. If in fact the question were cast in a context
where we had a scientifically robust purpose--that is, we do a
lot of examinations of how different curricula, different
programs benefit kids from different backgrounds. Frankly, we
have not looked at their religious affiliation; what we have
looked at is the kinds of things we have been talking about,
that being their background, their training, interactions that
occur between adults and kids, and so on.
But I will have to take this one back to NIH and talk to my
colleague at IES; he may want to comment.
Senator Reed. Well, does it suggest to you that you have
looked at a myriad of different details, but that one is so far
down your list that you have not looked at it? Doesn't that
suggest how critical it is in your scientific field?
Mr. Lyon. Well, it certainly has been far down my list, I
will grant you that.
Senator Reed. This opens up an issue, because the House
bill has language which I think will be very controversial.
Frankly, it does not seem to me to be an impediment to
participation to date nor going back 30 years, and it seems to
have no scientific basis in terms of the efficacy of teaching
children how to read.
I would hope we could move beyond that quickly in this
Senate.
The Chairman. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank all of our witnesses.
Let me start with the administration witnesses and just say
that I understand your concerns about ensuring that Head Start
children have the pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills that
they need to succeed in school. I think everyone shares that
goal.
I do not agree that the quality of Head Start explains why
children who have gone through most of their lives without
support or resources or stimulation are not on par with middle-
class children after just 9 months of 3 hours a day in a Head
Start program. However, I do agree that we need to take action
to ensure that they are on par with school children, and I
think we should look at a number of proposals that have been
laid before us.
But where you really lose me on your proposed solution is
that you propose no requirements for teacher credentials, no
money for large-scale literacy effort in classrooms, and no
expansion for children who receive Head Start or receive more
intensive services.
What you do say is that in order to strengthen literacy, we
ignore all the performance standards that we have worked over
the years long and hard to build and strengthen, in favor of
allowing States to see if they might do a better job.
Now, it is true that some States have developed some great
preschool programs--and my home State of Washington is one of
them--but I have talked to a lot of people around my State who
administer both Head Start and ECAP, and they all tell me the
same thing. They say that the program that they provide through
Head Start is far better than what they can provide with State
dollars.
Senator Dodd had a chart up here showing how many State are
really struggling with budgets right now, and providing
additional dollars is not something I have heard any of them
talking about.
But what all of our teachers agreed is that the difference
comes in the same performance standards that your block grant
proposals says we should allow States to ignore. So before we
throw the baby out with the bath water, tell me if you have any
studies--at all, anything--showing that any State preschool
program has better results in improving the achievement of low-
income children than Head Start does currently.
Ms. Hill. The first comment in response is that there is
not a proposal to throw out the Head Start performance
standards. Certainly, everything that has been done----
Senator Murray. But your proposal does not say that those
performance standards will remain. It gives a block grant to
States, who can then choose whether or not to keep those
performance standards.
Ms. Hill. There is quality in Head Start in a number of
areas, and we have been very successful in Head Start. Having
been a----
Senator Murray. Is there any requirement in your bill that
the performance standards have to be kept if the States get a
block grant?
Ms. Hill. Programs are to meet or exceed the current
standards that are being implemented in Head Start.
Senator Dodd. ``Generally.''
Senator Murray. ``Generally.''
Ms. Hill. As Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd have pointed
out, they would like to see that ``generally'' removed.
I can tell you the intent of the administration is not to
dilute or dismantle Head Start but to take those things that
have been extremely successful in preparing children to the
next level, to build on the 1998 platform of early language and
literacy and to continue to enhance.
Senator Murray. My time is short. I have heard that part of
the argument. What I want to know is if there are any studies
of any State programs.
Mr. Whitehurst. Senator Kennedy mentioned a review by Ed
Zigler, who is usually acknowledged as the father of Head
Start, with respect to State programs and Head Start programs,
and that review indicates, consistent with Dr. Shaul's
testimony, that we really do not have rigorous studies that
speak either to the impact of Head Start as currently delivered
or to the impact of State programs.
Senator Murray. OK. So there are no studies on which to
base your proposal that say that States are doing much better
in performance than the Federal Government is, but we are going
to change all that and just give them the benefit of what we do
not know?
Mr. Lyon. I think what we do know are the conditions that
need to be in place wherever the programs are located to
optimize our kids' development to get them ready for school. We
do know those conditions.
I cannot speak to the State block grant issue. What I can
speak to is the need to develop new models where in fact we can
bring together interactions to develop all of these
capabilities that we are talking about.
And if I could just mention in terms of Senator Dodd's
question, the fact is we are finding that the development of
social and emotional competencies are enhanced when we can
build good seamless programs with teachers who know how to do
that, and in fact----
Senator Murray. Dr. Lyon, the rhetoric sounds great. The
problem is that the Federal Government right now invests $6.5
billion to serve three out of five of our poorest 3- and 4-
year-olds. States now invest $2 billion in preschool--much less
than the Federal contribution--and the bulk of that funding is
concentrated in 10 States, and right now, we see investment in
States' budgets just unraveling.
Have any States come forward to you to say that they are
going to invest more money in Head Start and maintain the same
level of services should we change this program around?
Ms. Hill. Certainly there are States who are very
interested in----
Senator Murray. Which States have come forward with budget
requests to their legislatures for additional dollars?
Ms. Hill. At this point, there are no legislative budget
proposals, but there are States who have expressed interest in
this model. They appreciate the opportunity----
Senator Murray. This model to get Federal dollars sent
directly to them rather than to their local communities, so
that they----
Ms. Hill. They are interested in a model that allows them
to integrate Head Start into their other early care and
education programs.
Senator Murray. I can tell you that if I were a Governor, I
would love to have the Federal Government send me additional
dollars so that I could deal with the budget crisis that I was
having right now. But I know that that would come at the
expense of our current Head Start programs that are meeting
performance standards, are doing the best they can, and should
have expanded resources to serve more children. I guess that is
what really concerns me about this proposal at this time.
I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask Ms.
Santos very quickly--do you have any foster kids in your
program, or any homeless students?
Ms. Santos. Yes, we do; homeless and foster children, yes.
Senator Murray. So you serve all those populations.
Ms. Santos. I am sorry?
Senator Murray. We always talk about Head Start like we
have a bunch of 4-year-old robots who all look alike, and they
go through this program and get assessed and move on. The
reality of a preschool program, a Head Start program, is that
you have homeless children, you have foster children----
Ms. Santos. Yes.
Senator Murray [continuing]. You have children from one-
parent families, two-parent families, kids who may not have had
their dad come home last night, or what you described; and I
just think we have to be really careful with that perception.
The Chairman. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sometimes, the longer I am around here, the more it seems
like nothing every really changes; we just come back and plow
the same ground over and over again.
In the late 1980's, the Council for Economic Development
had a major study done. This was a group of CEOs of leading
corporations in America, and the head of that group was Jim
Ranier, who at that time was the head of Honeywell. They spent
the better part of 2 or 3 years studying what needed to be done
for economic development--economic development--in the United
States based on education.
You would have thought that they might have focused on more
science and math courses in college, they might have focused
more on technology training in high school. They looked at
everything, and at the end, they came up with a report. And do
you know what their executive summary said? It said that we
must understand that education begins at birth, and the
preparation for education begins before birth.
Here was a group of the leading CEOs in America--no social
scientists, mind you--doing a study and concluding that we do
not focus enough on WIC programs, on maternal and child health
care programs, and Head Start programs.
But their focus was on early programs. Now, we know from
studies from NIH that 85 percent of brain development occurs
before the age of 3. I think that is well-accepted data.
So all the talk I have heard this morning has to do with
something after 3 years of age. And Ms. Hill, in your
testimony, you do not even mention Early Head Start. You do not
even mention it. But I am not singling you out. A lot of you
did not, either--a couple of you mentioned it.
Yet if all we are going to do is pour money in after age 3,
after a lot of damage has already been done, we are just
spending money, and we are not catching up. So it seems to me
that what we have got to do is focus more on these early years,
Early Head Start.
Right now, you have, what, 3 percent; is that right, Ms.
Hill?
Ms. Hill. Yes.
Senator Harkin. Three percent of eligible kids are served
by Early Head Start programs. Again, we can talk about how we
are going to do this with the States, and how we are going to
monitor this and fix that, but unless and until we commit
ourselves as a nation and as a society to reach down to every
pregnant woman and guarantee that she is going to have full
maternal and child health care programs, good nutrition
programs, to make sure that every baby is born healthy, to make
sure there are intervention programs and home visit programs
and support for every child early on in life, from zero to age
3, forget about it. You are never going to get any better than
what we are doing right now.
I mean, we will do well--Head Start has been a wonderful
program; it has been successful--but it has been limited and
constrained by the fact that we will not commit the resources
needed to get down to these early kids, and even from 3 on. We
pay teachers $21,000 a year. That is more than they have been
paid in the past.
The kids are there for 3, 3\1/2\ hours a day. Most of their
days are spent with someone else--spent in a nonloving
environment, perhaps, an environment that is not conducive to
their social, emotional, and educational well-being. And we
expect that 3\1/2\ hours a day to somehow overcome the other 21
hours a day that that child is living.
So I have a lot of questions, but I just think we can beat
this around, and we can tell you the States--I think Senator
Dodd had it right. When you look at what the States are doing,
they are not doing one fraction of what we are doing in Head
Start in terms of home visits, support services, monitoring,
referrals--all that is mandated under Head Start. So it seems
to me that if a dispassionate observer came from outer space
and looked at what the States were doing and what the Federal
Government is doing, they would say the States ought to give
everything to the Federal Government and let them run it--not
the other way around.
So I think this is one case where theology--or ideology, I
should say--ideology has gotten ahead of what we know--not only
what we intuitively know, but what we know empirically--over
the last 50 years.
So if we just want to ignore the empirical data, if we want
to ignore the scientific basis, if we want to ignore all the
reports that have been done going back 25 years, fine--but do
not expect any more than what we are getting out of Head Start
right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Clinton--thank you for your patience, Senator.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I think it is not only very important but essential
that we try to sort out the different reactions to the
administration's proposal, and I hope that out of this
committee, we will have a bipartisan bill along the lines of
what Senator Dodd has proposed.
And I am sure that the witnesses, particularly the
administration witnesses, understand our concerns and our
cautions. I am struck, when I think about programs for
children, by how often they are in the States used as
piggybanks for other programs, and they do not provide the
basis for a sustained commitment.
When we passed the CHIP program back in the Clinton
Administration, we put in a provision that States that did not
use their money to provide services to children, because they
would have had to match those dollars to some proportion, would
lose them. I thought that was a pretty good idea, because I
could not imagine any State being willing to stand up in front
of their own citizens and the rest of the country and say:
Guess what--we did not spend all the money we could have spent
to take care of children. But indeed, that did occur.
So there is an enormous amount of not only suspicion but
evidence and experience which many of us who have worked on
these issues for a long time bring to this debate. And I think
the reauthorization that we are considering should be building
on the positive changes that took place during the 1990's.
We have already discussed the extraordinary successes of
Head Start, and I agree with the research findings and with the
experience in the field that we do have to increase the overall
educational level of the Head Start teachers. Every Head Start
director I know believes that--but where are they going to get
the funding to do it?
I know that many Head Start directors are frustrated by the
lack of resources which they know they need to provide the
high-quality educational services that the children they are
entrusted with deserve to have.
But we were making progress. We increased enrollment in
Head Start during the Clinton Administration. We increased
funding by 120 percent. We created the Early Head Start Program
to begin to do exactly what Senator Harkin said we needed to
do, which was to focus on infants and toddlers. And in the 1998
reauthorization, we doubled the Early Head Start Program so
that it can serve 62,000 infants and toddlers.
We have a long way to go, but we know what direction we
should be heading, and with all due respect, the administration
is coming to us and essentially raising suspicions in many of
our minds that the real agenda is to eventually block grant
this important program, turn it over to the States, which have
a mixed record at best.
Instead, it would be very helpful if we continued to build
on the performance standards and outcomes, if we invested more
money in the kind of research that both Drs. Lyon and
Whitehurst do, that we actually took the evidence we do have
about what works and fund it.
But it is also very hard for any of us who look at the
Federal budget to believe that there is going to be the funding
available to do any of this. So on the one hand, the budget
picture is dismal. Children are always competing with other
more powerful forces for the money they need, especially if
they are vulnerable poor children. And we do not have the
commitment to the performance standards in specifics as opposed
to generally that many of us would like to see.
So I do not think you will get any argument from any of us
on this committee that anything we can do to improve the
quality and the outcomes of Head Start, we are committed to
doing. The clearest way of doing that, as Ms. Wilkins has so
eloquently advocated, is to put more money into raising the
educational levels of the educators in Head Start. I do not see
that forthcoming in this proposal.
Instead, I see, as I do with so many of the
administration's recommendations, that we are looking at the
unraveling of a Federal commitment and the hoped-for State
commitment that has not materialized to date, and we do not
really believe it will in all 50 States. There may be
exceptions. There may be court decisions like Abbott in New
Jersey that force a State to act. But I have been around for a
long time. We have been fighting this battle for decades. If
the States really wanted to do this, they would have done it.
Head Start started because we knew that in the absence of a
Federal commitment to poor children, there would be very few
States that would provide the services that these children
deserve to have.
And I do not in any doubt the sincerity of the witnesses,
but the facts and the evidence of decades of experience lead me
to doubt the administrations intention.
So I am hoping that what we can do is, in a bipartisan way
here on our committee and in the Senate, under our chairman's
leadership and Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd's leadership,
come up with a reauthorization that truly will build on the
progress we made in the 1990's, put some real dollars into it,
and put Head Start on a firm footing for the 21st century, with
additional requirements and standards, which every decent Head
Start person I have ever talked to is begging for. And I hope
that we are going to be able to produce that, and I would look
forward to working with the administration to achieve that
goal, but it is going to take money and commitment, not just
rhetoric.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I want to thank the Senators for their patience and for
their participation. This has been an excellent hearing. We
especially thank the panel for their presentations, which were
extremely informative.
Thank you very much. Have a great day.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Prepared Statement of Windy M. Hill
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate this
opportunity to testify before you today on the President's plan to
strengthen Head Start as one means for helping to ensure that every
child has the opportunity to enter school ready to learn. I testify
before you not only as the Associate Commissioner of Head Start, but
also as a former Head Start child and the mother of a Head Start child
who is now an accomplished high school student following her ``great
start'' in Head Start. I truly believe that the President's plan will
help ensure that our preschool children will indeed have the
opportunity to enter kindergarten ready to learn and prepared with
knowledge and skills they must have to succeed no matter where they
started.
I believe the House took a major step toward ensuring that Head
Start children have the skills they need to succeed in school by
marking up legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the Head Start
program. We look forward to building on the momentum created by H.R.
2210, the ``School Readiness Act of 2003'', and your hearing today to
move the Head Start reauthorization forward in the coming weeks.
Head Start was launched in 1965 as part of a bold, ``big idea''--
that no child should be limited in his or her education because of the
circumstances of their families. For 38 years this country has
demonstrated a national, bipartisan commitment to this ``big idea''.
Congress has sustained funding for the Head Start program and has shown
a willingness to make changes when necessary to improve outcomes for
children such as the addition of the Program Performance Standards and
raising teacher qualifications. We have the same goal--to prepare
children--many like me--for success in school and later in life. Given
that goal, none of us should be satisfied until we have achieved the
vision reflected in the ``big idea'' that is synonymous with Head
Start--that economically disadvantaged children should arrive at school
on a more level playing field with economically advantaged peers. While
anything short of fully achieving this goal should not be seen as a
failure, we must all see it as a challenge for us to do even better.
Consequently, when research showed that Head Start graduates, even
those making significant progress, continue to lag too far behind on a
number of important indicators of early literacy and math skills, the
President and Secretary Thompson sent a clear message--given this
compelling evidence, more had to be done to strengthen the educational
outcomes for children. As part of the President's Good Start, Grow
Smart initiative, we were directed to increase the knowledge and skills
of Head Start teachers in the area of preschool language and literacy
and to create and manage a National Reporting System that will help
measure children's progress in mastering the skills necessary to
prepare them for a lifetime of learning.
Furthermore, the broader social context has changed dramatically
since 1965 when many States were just beginning to implement universal
kindergarten and no State had a publicly funded preschool program
primarily targeted to low-income children. In 1965 there was no need
for Head Start to coordinate with State-run preschool programs because
there weren't any. Today, more than 40 States and the District of
Columbia have early childhood programs of their own. Numerous States
are creating or revising their standards for child care and preschool
programs. Research also supports the importance of providing
comprehensive services, so States now are involved in trying to
integrate a multitude of other programs aimed at young children and
their families--including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),
Medicaid, special education, developmental screening, and outcome
assessments.
In response to the President and Secretary Thompson's charge and
our changing social context, we looked for ways to improve the
effectiveness of the Head Start program. Much about the program was
working, and working well, but we knew the program needed to move
ahead--particularly in the area of educational gains and coordination.
I would like to briefly describe our on-going efforts to improve the
educational component of Head Start over the past 2 years, as well as
provide detail on the President's innovative proposal.
The Bottom Line is School Readiness
The bottom line for the President, and now underscored in H.R.
2210, is school readiness--improving early childhood learning
experiences while holding programs accountable for achieving positive
educational outcomes. Research tells us a great deal about the skills
and knowledge children need to be successful in school. Success in
school is a strong predictor of success in life, as reflected in lower
delinquency rates, less teen pregnancy, higher income, fewer health
issues, less suicide, and so forth.
Federal and State governments currently spend more than $23 billion
each year for child care and preschool education--and much more than
that when you consider the other State health, nutrition, and welfare-
related programs that serve these same children and families. Never has
there been such a clear commitment on the part of Federal and State
governments to enhance the well-being of children and families. Never
have we known so much about what children need for healthy growth and
development. Never have so many programs been focused on meeting these
needs of our most vulnerable children and families.
At this same time, however, though Head Start children make
progress in areas of school readiness during the Head Start year, they
continue to lag behind their more economically advantaged peers on a
number of important measures of early literacy and math skills at
kindergarten entry.
The Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is at
the center of our research on the quality of Head Start and the
outcomes for children. In the FACES studies, child outcomes are
measured through direct assessment, observation, and parent and teacher
ratings, drawing upon a nationally stratified random sample of 3,200
children. FACES provides national data on Head Start child outcomes,
family involvement, key aspects of program quality and teacher
practices.
Research findings from FACES allow us to compare the performance of
Head Start children enrolled in 1997-1998 with children served in 2000-
2001. Both groups of children entered Head Start with levels of
academic skills and knowledge far below national norms. Both groups
demonstrated progress in early literacy and social skills and that is
good news. However, their overall performance levels when they left
Head Start still remained significantly below national norms for school
readiness and that is not good news for these children. Therefore, we
must do more to ensure that Head Start children enter kindergarten with
strong early literacy and math skills.
In responding to the President's Good Start, Grow Smart initiative,
the Head Start Bureau has already undertaken a number of efforts aimed
at bolstering the school-readiness of Head Start children. The
Strategic Teacher Education Program, known as STEP, launched last
summer, was designed to ensure that every Head Start program and every
classroom teacher has a shared, basic, fundamental knowledge of early
language and literacy development, and of state-of-the-art early
literacy teaching strategies. More than 3,300 local program teachers
and supervisors have received this training and have served as
``trainers and coaches'' to the nearly 50,000 Head Start teachers
across the country. I am pleased to report that the local trainers,
coaches, and directors are reporting that the STEP training is making a
difference in their classrooms.
Following the summer training sessions, the Head Start Bureau
conducted national training on mentor-coaching and on the social-
emotional development of young learners. These events expanded the
skills of teachers and supervisors in fostering effective classroom
learning environments and additional teaching practices. A national
web-based resource, called STEP-Net, has been created to help early
literacy specialists and coaches access and use resources and tools,
and to exchange information and promising practices.
As you know, the President has made accountability a guiding
principle of this Administration. In keeping with that principle, we
are working to make sure that we measure the outcomes of our efforts,
not merely the services that make up each of our programs. To that end,
one of the most important indicators of any program's efficacy is
whether or not it helps those it is intended to help reach certain
goals and outcomes.
Good Start, Grow Smart, therefore, calls for not only the
improvement and strengthening of Head Start through intense, large-
scale efforts in the areas of early language and literacy, but also for
a method to track the results of this effort. Good intentions, although
better than bad intentions, are not good enough. This Administration
believes that we must also challenge ourselves to determine whether or
not good intentions and well-designed implementation are translating
into good outcomes. We must, therefore, do a better job of determining
how well Head Start children across the country are being prepared for
kindergarten success. This fall we will begin implementing the national
assessment of some of the congressionally-mandated, school readiness
indicators for the 4-year-old children in Head Start.
In developing this child outcomes assessment system, we worked
with, and will continue to work with a technical workgroup that advises
and guides the selection, development, field-testing and use of
reliable and valid measurement tools for Head Start children. When no
reliable and valid instruments currently exist, we will engage the
appropriate researchers to develop or refine them before including them
in this outcomes reporting system. Our short-term goal is to include
only those assessment tools that are reliable and valid for use with
economically disadvantaged 4-year-old children with the cultural,
socio-economic and linguistic differences of Head Start children.
The President's Proposal
We believe this focus on the educational component of Head Start
and the measurement and assessment of outcomes will move the Head Start
program to a higher level of overall success for low-income children.
However, even more must be done as we have heard from Governors,
advocates, and even some Head Start directors that a lack of adequate
coordination between Head Start and State-administered programs is
undermining the program's ability to provide high quality preschool
services to as many children as possible throughout every State. Where
coordination is not currently occurring, we are finding large gaps and
patchy areas in our safety net, to the detriment of young children and
their families.
In some places, State pre-kindergarten and Head Start programs are
located in the same community and one or both programs are under-
enrolled and are competing for the same children and families.
Meanwhile, there are other communities where large numbers of children
remain unserved by either State pre-kindergarten or Head Start. To
further complicate this issue, when services in the early childhood
years are not well coordinated, children can end up in three different
settings within a single day: for example, early childhood special
education services, Head Start and child care.
Lack of coordination accelerates troubling and often, avoidable
problems--one of them is under-enrollment. Our most recent statistics
indicate that a Head Start program, by mid-year can be under-enrolled
by seven percent. Nationwide this would translate as 62,000 slots for
children that the Federal Government is paying for, but are going
unfilled. We believe a growing problem of under-enrollment is caused,
at least in part, by Head Start programs and other early childhood
programs competing for the same children, rather than collaborating to
serve as many children as possible.
To strengthen the Head Start program, improve services to low-
income children, and promote the coordination and integration of early
care and education services, President Bush is asking Congress to
include a provision in the reauthorization of the Head Start Act to
allow interested States to plan for, manage, and integrate Head Start
in their overall plans for preschool services.
As part of the solution, under both the President's proposal and in
H.R. 2210, States are offered the opportunity to coordinate their
preschool programs and child care programs with Head Start in exchange
for meeting certain accountability, maintenance of effort and
programmatic requirements. States eligible to participate must submit a
State plan for approval to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
that addresses several fundamental issues.
The School Readiness Act supports the President's plan in other
ways as well. Each State must indicate in its plan how it would better
coordinate Head Start with State-administered preschool programs. The
shared goal in making this option available to the States is to
coordinate preschool programs to better meet the needs of more
children. In addition, the State plan must address how it will work to
develop goals for all preschool children in the State and devise an
accountability system to determine whether children are achieving the
goals. In keeping with the President's plan, H.R. 2210 concurs that
States must describe in their plan how they will maintain the
comprehensive range of child development services for children
supported by Head Start funds, including the provision of social,
nutrition and health services, and guarantee that they will continue to
provide at least as much financial support for State preschool programs
and Head Start as they are currently providing.
The President's proposal, and now, the School Readiness Act, share
characteristics that are frequently misunderstood, misinterpreted or
overlooked altogether. I imagine, Mr. Chairman, that you and your
colleagues have received numerous phone calls and letters around some
of these issues. I would like to speak directly to a few of those
areas.
First, neither the President, nor the House is proposing to block
grant Head Start funding to the States. In fact, Head Start will
continue to be managed as a Federal-to-local program, except in those
instances where States are ``eligible'' to apply and are funded for
integrated preschool services that are approved by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. To be clear on this point, no State will be
required to take advantage of this opportunity nor is anyone proposing
that the Head Start program be turned over to States with no strings
attached.
Second, neither the President nor the House proposal allows States
to do away with the comprehensive services currently available through
Head Start. Indeed, States taking advantage of this option must make a
commitment to maintain the comprehensive services currently available
through Head Start for those children who, under the State plan, are
supported with Head Start funds. In addition, this Administration
believes that the need for parental involvement in Head Start is a
vital component to its success.
Third, both the President's plan and the House bill make clear that
the Federal Government will not cease or relinquish its oversight
responsibilities for the Head Start program. Under the President's
proposal, States who choose this option and who have their plans
approved will still be accountable to the Federal Government for their
use of Head Start funds and for achieving positive outcomes for
children. In cases where a State does not choose this option or where a
State's plan is not approved, the Federal Government will continue to
administer the Head Start program as a direct Federal-to-local program.
And the final major area of agreement I want to mention is that
neither the President's plan nor H.R. 2210 will allow States to
supplant State preschool--or any other State funds--with Head Start
dollars. Neither would a State be eligible if they reduced their State
spending levels on early childhood programs. Indeed, H.R. 2210 concurs
with the President's proposal that States must maintain their current
level of State spending on preschool programs.
Current Partnerships
Even in its historical, Federal-to-local program structure, Head
Start has always recognized the important role that States play in the
formulation and implementation of policies and initiatives that affect
low-income children and their families. Partnerships have always been
one of Head Start's highest priorities. These include partnerships with
local school districts, nearly 450 of which operate Head Start
programs, and partnerships with local governments--with 150 city and
county governments now operating Head Start programs.
In addition, we currently have State collaboration projects in all
50 States, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. One of
their roles is to facilitate significant, statewide partnerships
between Head Start and the States in order to meet the increasingly
complex challenges of improving the quality and efficiency of services
for economically disadvantaged children and their families.
Through these and other efforts at the State and local levels, Head
Start has sought to support the development and enhancement of State-
level efforts to build early childhood systems through linkages,
coordination, and integration of goals, policies and services. We will
continue these efforts to forge meaningful partnerships on behalf of
children and families to remove as many obstacles to partnership as
possible. In addition, the reauthorization of the Head Start Act
affords us the opportunity to do even more, by offering States the
option to include Head Start in their State preschool plans.
The Time is Right
One of the reasons the Head Start program has remained strong over
the course of nearly four decades is that it adapts to accommodate the
changing needs of children, families and communities. Now, more than
ever, economically-disadvantaged children and their families need a
strong, coordinated system of early care and education to help families
and children succeed.
The time has come to allow full integration of early childhood
services and preschool education, including Head Start within States.
We cannot afford to disperse resources through overlapping, competing
or ill-coordinated early childhood programs.
Most importantly, we cannot afford to have children slip through
the cracks that non-systematic approaches create. We do not want any
more preschool children--Head Start and others--to be left in the early
childhood ``learning gap'', particularly when children with the
greatest need for support continue to remain well below national norms
of school readiness.
Our children and families deserve the best programs that we can
provide and that States and communities can support. The President asks
that you allow States the option of integrating Head Start--our
nation's leading program for low-income preschoolers--into their
planning for, and delivery of coordinated services.
Other Improvements
Before concluding my statement, I would like to briefly highlight a
couple of other aspects of the President's Head Start reauthorization
proposal that will strengthen our ability to ensure program quality and
accountability and better support school readiness.
Of particular note, our proposal would change the current set-aside
for training and technical assistance to provide the Secretary with
greater discretionary authority to allocate these resources each year
in a manner that will maximize benefits to children and families. Our
proposal would also provide flexibility in targeting necessary funding
for quality improvements. Training and technical assistance resources
have grown considerably in recent years at a rate well above the growth
of Head Start--while, at the same time, grantees have had access to
quality improvement funds that provide them additional resources for
these activities. These changes will allow the Secretary to determine
the most appropriate level of funds, taking into account all the other
needs of the program, the children and their families. For example, in
fiscal year 2004, the increased flexibility will provide enrollment
increases in areas of the country with the greatest unmet needs for
Head Start services.
Conclusion
This committee has worked tirelessly over the years to provide a
solid support system for our nation's most vulnerable children and
families. Head Start remains a part of our nation's commitment to the
original ``big idea'' that no child can be left behind because of the
circumstances of their families or communities. This means that while
recognizing the important contribution that Head Start has made over
the past 38 years, we can, should and must do more--for we have not yet
fulfilled the full promise of the Head Start program.
The Administration is committed to strengthening the educational
component of Head Start and improving the coordination of services to
benefit school readiness for preschool children. Given the current
social environment, with the collage of services available, we believe
it is time to test a new approach to coordination. Can we guarantee
that it will work? That is an empirical question to be answered through
assessment of outcomes--and I believe that is one reason that the House
concurs with the President's proposal to give at least some States the
option to develop new ways to better coordinate services for low-income
children and families rather than proposing a block grant. Under this
option, the Administration is committed to carefully monitor progress,
measure results, and determine whether States can successfully offer
alternatives that will result in better outcomes for children. At the
same time, our efforts to strengthen the educational aspects of the
Head Start program will continue and the outcomes will be examined.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment and dedication to the
well-being of our nation's children, and thank you--Members of the
Committee, for your desire to hear more about our strategies to make
Head Start stronger to impact the lives of children and families. I
look forward to any continued dialogue as work proceeds on the
reauthorization of the Head Start program. I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement of G. Reid Lyon
THE CRITICAL NEED FOR EVIDENCE-BASED COMPREHENSIVE AND EFFECTIVE EARLY
CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Reid Lyon and I serve as the Chief of the Child Development and
Behavior Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I
am honored and humbled to appear before you today to discuss several
critical issues that must be addressed if we as a Nation are to ensure
that all children have the opportunity to enter school ready to learn.
I am humbled because I know of no greater gift, beyond the basics
of life, love and health, that we can give to our children than to
provide them with the social, emotional and cognitive foundations that
will enable them to succeed in school. I have spent a good part of my
career studying reading development and reading difficulties and
directing research programs that study children and their development
from kindergarten into their adult years. It is very clear to me that
young children who come to kindergarten without essential language,
early reading and math skills and other cognitive and conceptual
abilities are already at risk for significant school failure.
Comprehensive Preschool Programs: Helping Children Become Ready for
School and Ready to Read
Our research tells us that children entering kindergarten who
understand the structure and sounds of words, the meanings of words,
the rudimentary elements of the writing system, and the concept that
print conveys meaning, have significantly higher reading scores at the
end of the first grade than children who do not have these skills. In
fact, the difference between children who do and do not have this
knowledge upon entering kindergarten is approximately one year's worth
of reading development at the end of the first grade. We also know that
well over 80 percent of children reading poorly at the end of the first
grade will be reading poorly at the end of the fourth grade. We know
that if we do not close these gaps by nine years of age, there is an
overwhelming probability that reading failure will follow the
individual into adulthood. Data obtained from the NICHD Connecticut
Longitudinal Study show that approximately 75 percent of students
reading poorly at nine years of age continue to flounder in reading
into the adult years. To be sure, limited reading abilities portend
dire consequences.
Unfortunately we are not talking about a small number of lives that
are adversely affected by reading and academic failure. Over the past
decade, almost 40 percent of the nation's fourth graders, and at least
60 percent of fourth-grade children growing up in poverty have failed
to meet basic literacy standards. For example, in many urban school
districts the percentage of fourth grade students who cannot read at
the basic level approximates 70 percent. By grade twelve, Black and
Hispanic students read, on average, at the same level as white eighth
grade students. And the majority of these children would not suffer
from reading failure in grades four or twelve if they entered
kindergarten with a strong language foundation and with a good
understanding about print, sounds, sound-letter connections, and
writing concepts, followed by strong early reading supports in the
first few years of school. In fact, the National Research Council (Snow
et al., 1998) estimated that if children receive proper exposure and
systematic opportunities to develop foundational language, reading, and
emergent writing skills during early childhood, as few as five percent
may experience serious reading difficulty. This would be of enormous
benefit to our children, to their families, and to society. Preschool
programs that succeed in promoting children's language and early
literacy skills--so they enter school with age-appropriate
competencies--have been proven to change the course of children's
school careers and their adult lives (Ramey & Ramey, 2001).
In the next decade, if the American early care and education system
does not change, millions more children will never realize their
potential. What makes this issue so compelling and troublesome is it
does not have to be this way. We do know a good deal about the
foundational preschool abilities that predict success or failure in
reading in the early grades, and we are making substantial progress in
identifying the characteristics of high quality preschool programs that
are able to help three and four year old children acquire these
critical abilities.
We also know that preschool children from disadvantaged
environments are significantly behind their more affluent age-mates in
linguistic skills essential for later reading development. Our research
tells us that this is because youngsters growing up in low-income
environments engage in significantly fewer literacy (e.g., shared book
reading) and language (adult-child discussions) interactions in the
home. As Hart and Risley pointed out in their NICHD supported research
with professional, working class and welfare families, the average
child on welfare was having half as much experience listening and
speaking to parents (616 words per hour) as the average working-class
child (1,251 words per hour) and less than one third that of the
average child in a professional family (2,153 words per hour). What
does this mean? It means that our preschool programs must provide
children from low-income families with systematic and evidence-based
interactions to close these gaps. In many ways, a comprehensive
preschool program designed to help children develop the necessary
cognitive, language, early reading, social and emotional competencies
is their last hope to eventually succeed in school.
Let me be more specific about why youngsters from low-income
environments are at substantial risk for reading, and thus school
failure. A number of studies conducted by Grover Whitehurst, Chris
Lonigan and their colleagues with children ranging in age from two to
six found that phonological sensitivity (the ability to detect and
manipulate the sound structure of oral language) and letter knowledge
were highly predictive of success and failure in developing later
reading skills in kindergarten and first grade. When comparisons were
made between low and high-income children, two conclusions were
evident. First, children from low-income families have significantly
less well-developed phonological sensitivity than children from higher
income families. Second, children from lower income families
experienced significantly less growth in phonological sensitivity
during the preschool years compared to their higher income age-mates.
In a recent study reported in 2002, Lonigan studied longitudinally the
growth of phonological sensitivity and print knowledge of 325 three to
5-year old children attending Head Start. Over a 1 year period, these
youngsters experienced average approximate growth of 1.3 items on
phonological sensitivity tests and learned on average 4.4 letter names,
.45 letter sounds, and 8 new words assessed on an expressive vocabulary
measure. These gains were much less than those made by children from
middle-income families. The gap between low and higher-income children
in these foundational abilities is quite stark when you consider that
the typical middle-class child will learn nine new words a DAY from 18
months of age until entry into school, and will be able to name all the
letters of the alphabet upon entry into kindergarten. These gaps are
indeed unfortunate given that reading scores in the 10th grade can be
predicted with robust accuracy from knowledge of the alphabet in
kindergarten.
Can We Close These Gaps
Yes. The Strengthening Head Start report prepared by HHS in 2003
provides several examples of programs that provide comprehensive
interventions with systematic language and pre-academic components that
develop the knowledge and skills necessary for kindergarten and the
early grades and for closing the achievement gap between children from
higher and lower-income environments. I would like to request that this
report be entered into the formal record. As noted in the report, Dr.
Landry's CIRCLE program has found that Head Start teachers who received
two years of professional development to learn how to teach oral
language skills, phonological abilities and print awareness skills
along with interactions to help develop social and emotional
competencies significantly increased the development of these abilities
in the children served by these teachers involved in the training. In
addition, NICHD supported research over the past 5 years conducted by
Joseph Torgesen and Chris Lonigan at Florida State University has found
that a preschool emergent literacy program designed to develop oral
language, phonological sensitivity, and print awareness produced
significantly more growth in these skills than children not receiving
the program. Again, why is this important? Because these three areas of
emergent literacy are significant contributors to how easily, quickly
and well children learn to read.
Why Has the Development of Cognitive, Language and Early Literacy
Skills Been De-Emphasized in Head Start and Other
Early Childhood Programs?
For many years, Head Start and other early childhood programs have
focused on healthy development, adequate nutrition, help for families
with problems, and social/emotional readiness and general cognitive
development with lower priority given to the development of language,
and early reading and math skills. One reason for this is a concern
among many early childhood educators that any focus on cognitive
readiness will compromise a child's social and emotional well-being. A
frequently heard concern is that exposure to ``academic'' content
during preschool is not ``developmentally appropriate'' and such
exposure tends to ``hurry'' and ``stress'' the child at the expense of
emotional health and developing social skills with peers. In fact
however, if stress is produced in introducing cognitive concepts during
preschool, the evidence shows that it has nothing to do with the
youngster's ability to learn the concepts, and everything to do with
the manner in which the information is presented. This is a teaching
issue--not a content issue.
Three and 4-year-old children are not first graders and should not
be taught as such. They should not be exposed to cognitive concepts
while being asked to sit still or remain attentively quiet for long
periods, and they should not be presented with rote information
practiced through drills and routines (I would argue that first graders
should not have to endure this either). I mention this because it is a
frequently voiced concern. However, we do know that most children,
irrespective of background, can learn foundational cognitive and
language skills (including vocabulary, reading, and math skills) in
preschool when their interests are recognized, supported, and extended
rather than ignored or redirected. We also know that preschool children
enjoy learning new vocabulary, letter names, letters sounds, and number
and science concepts when caregivers and preschool teachers: (1) are
sensitive to a child's level of understanding, (2) are contingently
responsive to a child's signals, (3) are able to maintain and build on
a child's focus, (4) avoid high levels of restriction on behavior and
oral language usage, and (5) provide choices and adapt to a child's
changing needs. We also know that children learn cognitive, language,
and literacy concepts through a blend of child-directed discovery and
teacher-provided explicit information about vocabulary, letters, and
number concepts.
Nevertheless, while the belief that preparing a youngster's
cognitive readiness will compromise social and emotional well-being is
unfounded scientifically, it does continue to pervade the early
childhood culture and leads to predictable outcomes. Children do
demonstrate short-term gains in social and emotional development in
programs like Head Start but demonstrate limited to no long-lasting
gains in cognitive, reading and math skills. As a result, graduates of
programs like Head Start typically enter kindergarten with much lower
skill levels than their non-poverty peers.
Another reason it has been difficult to close the gap between what
we know from converging research and preschool practices is the
difficulty we face in translating current scientific findings into
practice in a timely fashion. For example, in the mid 1960s,
developmental science suggested that the major tasks for children
during the preschool years revolved around socialization--separating
from the home environment, learning how to interact with peers,
developing healthy emotional attachments to unfamiliar adults and
experiencing new material in novel environments. Likewise, it was known
that the development of social, emotional, and cognitive capabilities
was extremely difficult if children were not well nourished, physically
healthy and supported by parental involvement and responsive social
systems. And it is important to acknowledge and celebrate the
significant contributions that Head Start provided in developing and
implementing this knowledge into preschool practice in our nation's
most disadvantaged communities.
But, as Dr. Zigler stated in 1996, ``Head Start's goal is, and
always was, to prepare children for school.'' Over the past 3 decades
it was thought that ensuring adequate nutrition, healthy bodies,
emotional health and social competencies would lead to robust learning
in school. To be sure, physical health, adequate nutrition, parental
involvement, family social services, and interactions to develop
emotional health and social competencies are necessary to achieve this
goal, but they are not sufficient. Social and emotional competence do
not guarantee school readiness and academic achievement. Children also
must come to kindergarten and first grade with strong foundational
knowledge of language, reading, math, and science concepts essential
for success. The good news is that high quality early childhood
education programs can ensure that preschoolers develop these
fundamental language and cognitive concepts as noted earlier. The bad
news is that far too many children are spending time in preschool
settings--including many Head Start classrooms--that do not meet a
child's essential learning and cognitive needs, and thus neglect a very
important aspect of child development.
In short, there have been major advances in research showing us
that preschool-age children are ready to and can learn language,
reading, mathematics, and science concepts to a far greater extent than
previously thought. Our research tells us that if preschool-age
children are not taught and do not learn these concepts and skills,
they will not be ready for school. Unfortunately, our research also
indicates clearly that Head Start, as traditionally structured and
implemented, is not fully achieving its stated purpose of promoting
school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of
low-income children. Our studies continue to point to the fact that
low-income children from Head Start programs perform significantly
below their more advantaged peers in reading and mathematics once they
enter school. This gap places an unfair burden on the children so that
from the very first day of kindergarten they are already behind. This
is unfortunate because, with proper preschool instruction, they can
enter school on an equal footing with every other child
What Do the Data Tell Us About Head Start and School Readiness?
As mentioned earlier, a recent report by the HHS Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation reviewed the literature
relevant to the effectiveness of Head Start in closing the gap in
educational skills and knowledge for school success. The conclusions
drawn from this review of the evidence are sobering and will no doubt
be controversial. The bad news is that many children in Head Start are
not getting what they need to succeed in school. The good news is that
children in Head Start and other early childhood programs can make
significant gains if the programs implement effective early childhood
instructional practices, which will enhance the comprehensive mission
of Head Start.
I would like to summarize the major findings of the Strengthening
Head Start report. First, allow me to provide some relatively good news
that the report provided based on data obtained from the 1997 and 2000
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES).
1. Head Start children made some progress in some areas:
A. In 2000, the mean standard score for vocabulary increased 3.8
points, from 85.3 to 89.1 on a scale for which the average is 100. This
result is similar to the data for 1997 that showed Head Start children
scored about 85, at the beginning of the year and gained about 4 points
by the end of the year.
B. In 2000, the mean standard score for writing increased by 2
points, from 85.1 to 87.1.
C. In 2000, children showed gains in book knowledge and print
conventions (that is, they can show an adult the front of a storybook
and open it to where the adult should start reading). This progress is
statistically greater than for the 1997 Head Start year during which no
progress was made in this area.
D. Spanish-speaking children in Head Start showed significant gains
in English vocabulary skills without declines in their Spanish
vocabulary.
E. Children showed growth in social skills and reduction in
hyperactive behavior during the Head Start year. Even children with the
highest levels (scoring in the top quarter) of shy, aggressive, or
hyperactive behavior showed significant reductions in these problem
behaviors. Teachers rated children's classroom behavior as more
cooperative at the end of the Head Start year than when children first
entered the program.
F. Children who received higher cooperative behavior ratings and
lower problem behavior ratings from Head Start teachers scored better
on cognitive assessments at the end of kindergarten, even after
controlling for their scores on cognitive tests taken while in Head
Start.
G. Children who entered Head Start in 1997 showed significant gains
in their social skills, such as following directions, joining in
activities, and waiting turns in games and gains in cooperative
behaviors, according to ratings by teachers and parents. The quality of
children's social relationships, including relating to peers and social
problem solving, also improved.
H. Head Start has other positive qualities. In 1997, the program
received very high ratings of satisfaction from parents, and for the
roughly 16 percent of children in Head Start with a suspected or
diagnosed disability, 80 percent of parents reported that Head Start
had helped them obtain special needs resources for the child.
2. Most children enter and leave Head Start with below-average
skills and knowledge levels. Unfortunately, the 1997 and 2000 FACES
data indicate that despite some strengths within the Head Start
program, many children are being left behind:
A. The 1997 FACES data indicate that children enter Head Start at
shockingly low levels compared to the average performer (performance at
the 50th percentile) on measures of vocabulary (average percentile=16),
letter recognition (average percentile=27), early writing (average
percentile=16) and early mathematics (average percentile=17) and leave
the program showing only very modest gains in vocabulary (average
percentile=23), early writing (average percentile=23) and early math
(average percentile=19). Note that these improvements still indicate
performance far below the average range. Note also that exit
performance on the letter recognition task, something that children
love to learn, and is one of the predictors of later reading ability,
remained low, even declining slightly to the 25th percentile.
B. The more recent 2000 FACES data show modest improvement in
results for children, but overall progress is still too limited.
Children continue to lag behind national norms when they exit Head
Start. Data from Head Start FACES 2000 show that:
i. The level of children's achievement in letter-recognition for
the 2000 Head Start year is far below the majority of U.S. children who
typically know all letters of the alphabet upon entering kindergarten,
according to the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of the Kindergarten
class of 1998.
Spanish-speaking children in Head Start did not gain at all in
letter recognition skills in 2000.
ii. Although writing scores increased 2 points during the 2000 Head
Start year, this was a drop from children who entered Head Start in
1997 who increased 3.8 points in writing during that year.
iii. Though children who entered Head Start in 2000 made more
progress in some areas compared to 1997, scores at the end of the Head
Start year remained far below the average level in all areas of
competency. For example, over the Head Start year, vocabulary
development increased from the 16th percentile to the 23rd percentile
(identical to 1997). Letter recognition upon entry into the program was
at the 31st percentile and remained at the 31st percentile at the
completion of the program. Early writing skills increased over the year
from the 16th to the 23rd percentile and early mathematics skills also
increased from the 21st to the 23rd percentile.
iv. As noted earlier, children who entered Head Start in 2000 made
progress in early mathematics during the Head Start year that was
statistically significant; however the difference was miniscule (from
87.9 to 89.0 on a scale where 100 is the average). Moreover, this
amount of progress was no greater than that found for children who
attended Head Start from Fall to Spring in 1997.
v. Children who entered the program in 2000 with overall lower
levels of knowledge and skill showed larger gains during the program
year than children who entered with higher levels of knowledge.
However, they still lagged far behind national averages.
vi. Head Start children did not start kindergarten with the same
social skill levels as their more economically advantaged peers and
they continue to have more emotional and conduct problems than do
middle class peers.
vii. Only 25 percent of Head Start teachers were college graduates,
compared to 86 percent in State pre-K programs. Research points clearly
to the important role of teacher knowledge and education in learning
outcomes for children, including preschoolers.
In summary, there is more work to do. Despite small gains and the
positive qualities of Head Start programs, children in Head Start are
making only very modest progress in only some areas of knowledge and
skill, and children in Head Start are leaving the program far behind
their same-age peers. To be sure, Head Start programs vary
significantly in quality as well as in the amount of time children
attend Head Start programs. Some youngsters spend only part of the day,
week and year in a program, while other children are provided programs
for the entire day, week and year. These differences will certainly
affect the overall outcomes for children, since both quality and
quantity of learning experiences impact children's progress. What we
must do is identify those factors and conditions that characterize high
quality Head Start programs and duplicate them in all Head Start
programs. More progress must be made and can be made to put Head Start
children on par with others by the time they enter kindergarten.
3. Disadvantaged children lag behind their age- and grade-mates
throughout the school years. Effective early childhood intervention is
important because disadvantaged children are at significant risk for
poor educational outcomes throughout the school years.
The Strengthening Head Start report reviewed data from the
nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-
Kindergarten (ECLS-K), the National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress and
reported the following findings. While a number of specific conclusions
are provided in the Report, the following two general trends are
noteworthy:
A. Children with multiple risk factors (e.g., parents have not
completed high school, low-income or welfare family, single parent
family, parents speak a language other than English in the home) are at
the greatest risk for educational failure.
B. The achievement gap persists into elementary and high school
years. Data from the ECLS-K show that the gap for low-income children
begins to close in kindergarten in very basic reading and mathematics
skills such as letter recognition and counting, but the achievement gap
widens for the more advanced reading and mathematics skills, such as
recognizing words and adding and subtracting.
In summary, data from several sources converge to show that
achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged children that are
evident during the pre-kindergarten years continue to characterize
disadvantaged children in kindergarten and throughout elementary
school. It is critical that we better understand the conditions under
which programs have a real opportunity to close these gaps and
implement them at the earliest possible time.
4. Fragmented service delivery hinders improvements in Head Start
and other early childhood programs. At both the Federal and State
levels, the early childhood services are characterized by multiple
funding sources and requirements--each with different rules and
standards, eligibility requirements, and desired child and family
outcomes.
In a report published in 2000, the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) found 69 Federal programs, administered by nine different Federal
agencies and departments, funding early education and/or child care for
youngsters under age 5. The GAO noted that when multiple agencies
manage multiple early childhood education and care programs, mission
fragmentation and program overlap can occur. This in turn creates the
potential for BOTH duplication and service gaps. Although GAO pointed
out that duplication can sometimes be necessary, fragmentation and
overlap can also create an environment in which programs do not serve
participants as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Reports from parents, providers, and State program administrators
underscore how a lack of program coordination undermines the efficiency
and effectiveness of early childhood programs. Parents report that a
poorly coordinated system makes it difficult for them to find good
quality care for their children. They are put in a position to try to
determine which programs best suit their needs, and then go through the
application and eligibility determination process for each program
separately. Some programs, including Head Start, may only be offered in
the parent's neighborhood for part of the day or year, while the parent
needs a full day/year program because of their work responsibilities.
If the local Head Start program does not collaborate with other local
child care programs, parents are forced to cobble together various
arrangements to ensure adequate care for the necessary length of time.
From the provider's perspective, the lack of program coordination
forces them to juggle different eligibility requirements for children
and families, different methods of receiving subsidies or other State
or Federal funds, and different requirements and standards for the
programs they provide. In addition, different early childhood programs
typically require different credentials for teachers and providers, and
offer a range of salaries and benefits, making it difficult for
providers in a community to view themselves as part of a comprehensive
system. In fact, differences in salaries and benefits may have the
unintended effect of drawing the most qualified providers to some
programs rather than others--for example, toward teaching in pre-
kindergarten school-based programs rather than in a Head Start program
or infant and toddler care. Lack of coordination also affects health
and social service providers who must struggle to serve patients and
clients who do not have a single point of entry into the system and who
have a variety of needs that must be met.
From the perspective of State administrators, programs can be both
inefficient and ineffective when States must juggle funding,
enrollment, eligibility and other concerns for multiple programs
administered by different Federal agencies. States are held responsible
by the public for the care and education of young children, but lack
power and control to create a seamless system and to provide access to
all eligible families. Lack of coordination significantly complicates
State efforts to engage in strategic and fiscal planning. Key
stakeholders may have competing priorities and objectives and have
difficulty agreeing on how best to meet the needs of the community.
Instead of collaboration, there may be competition at the State level
for scarce resources. Finally, States are aware that they will be held
responsible for student performance in elementary school through the No
Child Left Behind Act, and want to make sure that all children in the
State enter kindergarten ready to learn. However, a fragmented system
makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a State to provide the
needed comprehensive services to all children from low-income homes who
will begin kindergarten in the public schools.
This uncoordinated approach to service delivery significantly
impedes providing effective early childhood programs that are
successful in preparing at-risk children for school. To be sure there
are many complex barriers to achieving coherence and coordination
across early childhood programs and many of these are identified in the
Strengthening Head Start report.
We Can Do Better Than We Are Doing
As pointed out earlier, converging evidence indicates strongly that
young children who are provided frequent, systematic, positive
interactions with adults and other children to foster the development
of social, emotional and cognitive capabilities in an integrated
fashion are FAR more likely to succeed in school than children who are
in lower quality and less stimulating programs. The HHS Strengthening
Head Start report submitted with this testimony and the Proceedings
from the White House Summit on Early Childhood Cognitive Development
convened by Mrs. Bush summarize the critical foundational skills that
children must have to succeed in school. In brief, research tells us
that if language, literacy, and other cognitive factors are attended to
through high quality programming in early childhood settings,
children's school readiness can be significantly improved. In the pre-
kindergarten years, research describes three key components of high
quality programs for reading and academic success. These include a
strong foundation in: (1) language development; (2) early literacy
(phonological awareness, letter knowledge, written expression, book and
print awareness, motivation to read); and (3) early math (number and
operations).
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is critical that early childhood programs including Head
Start provide a genuinely comprehensive set of services and educational
opportunities to all children, including those with disabilities, that
are grounded in developmental science. It is imperative that children's
social, emotional, and cognitive growth be fostered on the basis of
what developmental science tells us about what preschool children can
learn, what they need to learn to succeed in school, and how learning
is most optimally supported. For too long, our understanding,
development, and implementation of preschool programs have been based
on philosophical beliefs, untested assumptions, or out-of-date science.
This practice has left many children behind. The NICHD, in
collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) and the Department of
Health and Human Services (ACYF, ACF, ASPE) has developed a
comprehensive research program to develop and evaluate comprehensive
early childhood programs that combine interactions to enhance
cognitive, social and emotional abilities in children at risk for
developmental difficulties and school failure. But we now know enough
at this time to develop and implement preschool curricula that are
effective as described in this testimony. Standards should be developed
to reflect the need for preschool curricula to stimulate verbal
interaction, enrich children's vocabularies, encourage talk about
books, develop knowledge about print, generate familiarity with the
basic purposes and mechanisms of reading, math and science, and
appreciate the needs of children with disabilities and children
acquiring English as a second language.
2. It is clear that we must develop a comprehensive assessment and
reporting system to ensure that Head Start programs produce the
positive outcomes that we know are achievable. This reporting system
will, for the first time ever in the history of Head Start, provide
outcome data on all Head Start programs and children, with and without
disabilities, and thus help to identify areas in need of continued
improvement, as well as to document systematically Head Start's
successes. Note that all of the high quality demonstration projects
that have produced large and lasting benefits for children and their
families have involved systematic assessment and reporting about both
the program quality and the children's development. High quality
programs that endorse continuous quality improvement welcome
assessment. We owe it to the parents of Head Start to assess their
children's progress on a regular basis, in ways that will help guide
the instruction and support Head Start. And children are not stressed
or frightened by the assessment; they have fun in a one-to-one
interaction with a responsive adult who is allowing them to demonstrate
their skills and mastery.
3. We must ensure that our youngest children are learning from
teachers who are highly competent in their ability to help children
develop social competencies, emotional health, and the cognitive,
language, literacy and mathematics concepts critical to school success.
Numerous studies have shown that program quality and the benefits to
children, with and without disabilities, are inextricably linked with
staff educational background and training. The significant benefits to
children provided by the Chicago CPC program and the CIRCLE program
described in the HHS Strengthening Head Start report underscore this
point. All preschool teachers in the CPC program had college degrees
and certification in early childhood. While the teachers in the CIRCLE
program ranged in education from high school degree through graduate
degrees, the systematic training, mentoring, and follow-up training
produced many teachers of high quality.
4. It is essential that preschool programs be coordinated with
programs providing early care and education as well as with the
curriculum framework and goals of kindergarten and early public school
programs. Moreover, greater coordination and collaboration are needed
between State and Federal programs to ensure that all children entering
kindergarten are ready to learn. The value of a highly coordinated
series of programmatic interactions from age 3 through the early grade-
school years can be seen in the results produced by the Chicago CPC
program. The fact that the CPC program is provided through the Chicago
public schools provides a continuity in children's learning
environments as well as appropriate levels of compensation for teachers
and staff. Other communities have developed alternative models for
coordination that include programs located outside the public school
system.
5. While many Head Start programs need to be strengthened to ensure
high quality interactions to support and develop physical (health)
social, emotional, and cognitive strengths in an integrated and
accountable fashion, it is clear that many States do have such high
quality programs in place. It will be critical to identify these
programs that are beacons of light and expand and build on them with
both local and State funding. It will also be critical to identify low-
performing programs and provide the necessary technical assistance to
strengthen them but, in the end, to ensure that the health and
development of our children are the priorities, not the survival of
ineffective programs.
Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to discuss
these issues with you today. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Prepared Statement of Marnie S. Shaul
EDUCATION AND CARE
Head Start Key Among Array of Early Childhood Programs, But National
Research on Effectiveness Not Completed
Why GAO Did This Study
The Federal Government invests over $11 billion in early childhood
education and care programs. These programs exist to ensure that
children from low-income families are better prepared to enter school
and that their parents have access to early childhood education and
care that allow them to obtain and maintain employment. The Federal
Government invests more in Head Start, which was funded at $6.5 billion
in fiscal year 2002, than any other early childhood education and care
program. Head Start has served over 21 million children at a total cost
of $66 billion since it began. The Chairman, Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions asked GAO to discuss Head
Start--how it fits within the array of early childhood education and
care programs available to low-income children and their families and
what is known about its effectiveness.
WHAT GAO FOUND
Head Start, created in 1965, is the largest funded program among an
array of Federal early childhood education and care programs, most of
which did not exist until decades later. The early education and child
care demands of families have changed significantly since Head Start's
inception. More women are working, the number of single parents has
been increasing, and welfare reform has resulted in more families,
including those with young children, entering the workforce. To help
meet families' demands for early childhood education and care services,
an array of Federal programs, such as the child care block grant, have
been added over time. Program legislation requires some of these
programs to coordinate the delivery of early childhood education and
care services for low-income families with young children. For example,
to provide parents with full day coverage, Head Start, a predominately
part day program, may coordinate with child care programs for the other
part of the day. However, barriers--such as differing program
eligibility requirements--sometimes make it difficult to blend services
across the different programs.
Although extensive research exists that provides important
information about Head Start, no recent, definitive, national-level
research exists about Head Start's effectiveness on the lives of the
children and families it serves. In its last reauthorization, Congress
mandated a Head Start effectiveness study and specified that it be
completed this year. According to HHS, the study will be completed in
2006.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
today to discuss our work on early childhood education and care
programs, and in particular, Head Start, which many view as one of the
most successful social programs. Nationwide attention has been focused
on ensuring that children from low-income families are better prepared
to enter school and that parents have access to early childhood
services that allow them to obtain and maintain employment. In
response, the Federal Government has increased funding for early
childhood education and care programs to over $11 billion. Head Start--
the Federal Government's single largest investment in early childhood
education and care for low-income children--has served over 21 million
children and their families at a total cost of $66 billion since its
inception in 1965; its funding for fiscal year 2002 was $6.5 billion.
The reauthorization of the Head Start program offers a timely
occasion for considering the two major issues my statement will address
today: How Head Start fits into the array of early childhood education
and care programs available to low-income children and their families
and what is known about Head Start's effectiveness. My statement is
based primarily on recent studies that we have conducted on early
childhood education and care programs.
In summary, much has changed in society since Head Start was
established nearly 40 years ago, including an increase in the
availability of Federal early childhood programs for low-income
families. Changes in women's employment, family structure, and public
assistance have dramatically increased the demand for early education
and child care for low-income families. To help meet the increased
demand brought about by societal changes, an array of Federal education
and care programs, as well as many State and local community programs,
has been created for children from low-income families. The largest
sources of additional Federal funding for child care services come from
the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF). To meet the demands of families, some Federal
programs require coordination of services among early childhood
education and care programs. To illustrate, most Head Start programs
are predominately part day, part year programs, and they cannot meet
the demands of working families who need full-day, full-year education
and care services. In response to this requirement, some Head Start
programs collaborate with other programs to provide families full day
coverage. However, differing program eligibility requirements and other
coordination barriers sometimes impede coordination efforts.
Although a substantial body of Head Start research exists that
provides important information about the program, little is known about
its effectiveness on the lives of the children and families it serves.
Although the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) currently
has studies that show that the skills of children who participate in
Head Start have improved, the studies do not provide definitive
evidence that this improvement is a result of program participation and
not other experiences children may have had. HHS has a study underway,
however, that is expected to provide more definitive information on
Head Start's effectiveness in preparing young children for school. The
study, mandated by Congress to have been completed this year, is
expected to be completed in 2006, according to HHS. Currently, no
preliminary results are available.
BACKGROUND
Head Start was created in 1965 as part of the ``War on Poverty.''
The program was built on the premise that effective intervention in the
lives of children could be best accomplished through family and
community involvement. Fundamental to this notion was that communities
should be given considerable latitude to develop their own Head Start
programs. Head Start's primary goal is to prepare young children to
enter school. In support of its school readiness goal, the program
offers children a broad range of services, which include educational,
as well as medical, dental, mental health, nutritional, and social
services. Children enrolled in Head Start are primarily 3 and 4 years
old and come from varying ethnic and racial backgrounds. Most children
receive part day, part year program services in center-based settings.
Head Start is administered by HHS. Unlike most other Federal early
childhood education and care programs that are funded through the
States, HHS awards Head Start grants directly to local grantees.
Grantees may contract with organizations--called delegate agencies--in
the community to run all or part of their local Head Start programs.
ARRAY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAMS EXISTS TO HELP
MEET INCREASED DEMAND
Families' needs for early childhood education and care have changed
dramatically since Head Start's inception, and to meet the increased
demand, the Federal Government has created an array of Federal early
education and care programs. Many of these programs are required to
coordinate the delivery of services to low-income families with
children. However, barriers sometimes exist, making it difficult to
blend the services offered across programs to meet the demands of
families.
INCREASED DEMAND FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE SERVICES HAS
LED TO AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF PROGRAMS
Since Head Start was created in 1965, it has provided a wide range
of services, through part day, part-year programs, to improve outcomes
for children from low-income families. However, the demographics of
families have changed considerably over the past several decades and
increasingly, families need full-day, full-year services for their
children. More parents are working full time, either by choice or
necessity, and the proportion of children under age 6 who live with
only one parent has increased. Moreover, welfare reform has meant that
more families, including those with very young children, are expected
to seek and keep jobs than ever before.
To help meet the demand for early education and care, the Federal
Government has increased the number of, and funding for, programs
providing early education and care services. For example, Head Start
program funding has tripled over the past decade. Moreover, the Federal
Government invests over $11 billion in early education and care
programs for children under age 5, primarily through six major
programs, including Head Start (see table 1). These programs are funded
through HHS and the Department of Education. While these six programs
receive most of the Federal funding for early childhood education and
care, many other smaller programs also fund services for low-income
families with children.\1\ Funding under these six programs can
generally be used to provide a range of services: early education and
care; health, dental, mental health, social, parental, and nutritional
services; speech and hearing assessments; and disability screening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO analysis of Department of Education and HHS data using
proportions based on analysis in U.S. General Accounting Office, Early
Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess Crosscutting
Programs, GAO/HEHS-00-78 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2000).
All of the programs--with the exception of IDEA--specifically
target low-income children and their families, though they may actually
serve different populations and age ranges of children. For example,
Even Start programs serve a larger percentage of Hispanic children and
a broader age range of children than Head Start.\2\ Moreover, some
programs differ in their goals. The primary goal of early childhood
education programs such as Head Start, Even Start, and Title I, is to
prepare young children to enter school. In contrast, a primary goal of
child care programs, such as CCDF is to subsidize the cost of care for
low-income parents who are working or engaged in education and training
activities. In addition, States have the flexibility to use block grant
funds to subsidize child care as States pursue one of the key TANF
goals--promoting employment for low--income adults with families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Head Start and Even Start:
Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures of Adult Education and
Literacy, GAO-02-348 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Federal programs that support services for poor
children, many State and local community programs also offer education
and care services for low-income families.\3\ The majority of States,
39, fund preschool programs. Moreover, some States provide funding to
supplement Head Start and fund child care programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Education and Care: Early
Childhood Programs and Services for Low-Income Families, GAO/HEHS-00-11
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEAD START AND OTHER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS REPORT SERVICE
COORDINATION, BUT BARRIERS TO COORDINATION EXIST
To better ensure that low-income families and their children can
access the services provided through the myriad Federal programs,
Congress mandated that some programs coordinate with one another to
deliver services to low-income families and their children. As a
result, program officials have reported collaborative efforts with one
another to deliver services; however, barriers still remain.
Head Start programs are required by law to coordinate and
collaborate with programs serving the same children and families,
including CCDF, Even Start, IDEA, and other early childhood programs.
Similarly, CCDF agencies are required to coordinate funding with other
Federal, State, and local early childhood education and care programs.
To promote more integrated service delivery systems and to encourage
collaboration between Head Start and other programs that fund early
childhood services, HHS began awarding collaboration grants to States
in 1990. In fiscal year 2002, Head Start provided $8 million to States
to support collaborative activities. Moreover, in awarding program
expansion funds, Head Start has given priority to funding first those
Head Start programs that coordinate with other child care and early
childhood funding sources to increase the number of hours children
receive early education and care.
Positive outcomes have occurred as a result of early childhood
education and care program collaboration, enabling some States to
expand the options for low-income families with children. For example,
Head Start and CCDF officials reported pooling resources by sharing
staff to add full day care to the half-day Head Start program and to
add Head Start services, such as nutrition and medical care, to day
care programs. At the local level, about 74 percent of Even Start
grantees reported that they collaborated with Head Start in some way,
including cash funding, instructional or administrative support,
technical assistance, and space or job training support.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO-02-348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, collaboration does not eliminate all gaps in care, and
sometimes barriers, such as differing eligibility requirements, program
standards, and different locations of programs, hinder collaboration.
For example, program officials in one State said that the differing
eligibility requirements between CCDF and Head Start made collaboration
difficult. CCDF funds may be used for families with incomes up to 85
percent of State median income, which generally allows the States to
give subsidies to families whose income is higher than the Federal
poverty level.\5\ Head Start's income eligibility standard requires
that 90 percent of enrollments be from families at or below the Federal
poverty level or from families eligible for public assistance. Thus,
collaboration between these programs to achieve objectives might be
difficult because some children may be eligible only for CCDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In fiscal year 2000, the Federal poverty guideline was $17,050
for a family of four while the State median income ranged from a low of
$24,694 for West Virginia households to a high of $43,941 in Maryland
in 2000. States have the flexibility to set income eligibility limits
up to 85 percent, but generally set them lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVENESS STUDY UNDERWAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER HEAD START MAKES A
DIFFERENCE
Although an extensive body of Head Start research exists that
provides important information about the program, no definitive,
national-level research exists on the effectiveness of Head Start for
the families and children it serves, prompting Congress to mandate such
a study when it reauthorized the program in 1998. HHS has other studies
underway that provide important information about the progress of
children enrolled in the program; however, these studies were not
designed to separate the effects of children's participation in Head
Start from other experiences these children may have had. Although
obtaining information about Head Start's effectiveness is difficult,
the significance of Head Start and the sizeable investment in it
warrant conducting studies that will provide answers to questions about
whether the program is malting a difference.
In 1998, we testified that the body of research on Head Start
though extensive, was insufficient for drawing conclusions about the
program as a whole and recommended that HHS undertake a study of Head
Start's effectiveness.\6\ In reauthorizing Head Start in 1998, Congress
mandated such a study. The law mandated that the study be completed in
2003 and was very specific in detailing the kind of study HHS was to
undertake. Specifically, Congress required that the study use rigorous
methodological designs and techniques to determine if Head Start
programs are having an impact on children's readiness for school. The
mandated study addresses two questions: (1) what difference does Head
Start make to key outcomes of development and learning for low-income
children and (2) under which conditions does Head Start work best and
for which children?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Head Start: Challenges Faced in
Demonstrating Program Results and Responding to Societal Changes, GAO/
T-HEHS-98-183. (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study is using a rigorous methodology that many researchers
consider to be the most definitive method of determining a program's
effect on its participants when factors other than the program are
known to affect outcomes.\7\ This methodology is referred to as an
``experimental design'' in which groups of children are randomly
assigned either to a group that will receive program services or to a
group that will not receive program services. This approach produces
information that is more likely to show the effect of the program being
studied, rather than the effects of other developmental influences on
young children (see fig. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Early Childhood Programs: The
Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess Program Effects, GAO-01-542
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Head Start study is a $28.3 million national impact evaluation
that follows participants over time. The study has two phases. The
first phase, a pilot study designed to test various procedures and
methods, was conducted in 2001. The second phase began in the fall of
2002 and entails data collection on 5,000 to 6,000 3- and 4-year-olds
from 75 programs and communities across the country. The study will
track subjects through the spring of their first grade year. An interim
report, scheduled to be released in September of this year, will
describe the study's design and methodology and the status of the data
collection; it will not contain findings. Although Congress required
that the study be completed in 2003, HHS reports that the study will be
completed in 2006. This study is a complex, multiyear, longitudinal
study and considerable attention had to be given to both study planning
and execution. According to HHS, many aspects of the study needed to be
pilot tested before the larger study could begin.
In another effort, Head Start is collecting outcome data on a
nationally representative sample of Head Start children and families as
part of its Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES). FACES is an
ongoing, longitudinal study of Head Start programs that uses a national
sample of 3,200 children. FACES provides national data on Head Start
child outcomes, family involvement, and key aspects of program quality
and teaching practices. New findings from FACES research published in
2003 show that children enrolled in Head Start demonstrated progress in
early literacy and social skills; however, their overall performance
levels when they left Head Start was below that of children nationally
in terms of school readiness.\8\ This study, however, was not designed
to provide definitive data about whether the initial gains children
made in early literacy and social skills resulted from their
participation in Head Start or some other experiences children may have
had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start FACES 2000:
A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy
to respond to any questions you or other Committee Members may have.
GAO CONTACT AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For further information regarding this testimony, please call
Marnie S. Shaul, Director, at (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Sherri Doughty and Harriet
Ganson.
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
Child Care: Recent State Policy Changes Affecting the Availability
of Assistance for Low-Income Families. GAO-03-588. Washington, D.C.:
May 5, 2003.
Head Start and Even Start: Greater Collaboration Needed on Measures
of Adult Education and Literacy. GAO-02-348. Washington, D.C.: March
29, 2002.
Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served but Gauging
Effect on School Readiness Difficult. GAO/HEHS-00-171. Washington,
D.C.: September 20, 2000.
Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the Availability
of School Readiness Information. GAO/HEHS-00-38. Washington, D.C.:
February 28, 2000.
Early Childhood Programs: The Use of Impact Evaluations to Assess
Program Effects, GAO-01-542. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2001.
Education and Care: Early Childhood Programs and Services for Low-
Income Families. GAO/HEHS-00-11. Washington, D.C: Nov. 15, 1999.
Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess
Crosscutting Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-78. Washington, D.C.: April 28,
2000.
Head Start: Challenges Faced In Demonstrating Program Results and
Responding to Societal Changes. GAO/T-HEHS-98-183. Washington, D.C.:
Jun. 9, 1988.
Head Start: Challenges in Monitoring Program Quality and
Demonstrating Results. GAO/HEHS-98-186. Washington, D.C.: June 30,
1998.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Head Start Programs: Participant
Characteristics, Services, and Funding. GAO/HEHS-98-65. Washington, D.
C.: March 31, 1998.
Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact of
Current Program. GAO/HEHS-97-59. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1997.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO--03-840T. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Marnie S. Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].
Prepared Statement of Janis Santos
Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Kennedy and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today on behalf
of the thousands of successful Head Start programs across the country
and to offer the views of the National Head Start Association (NHSA)
\1\ on how best to continue to improve Head Start for the more than
900,000 low-income children who rely every day on this program for
their health, nutrition and cognitive development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Head Start Association (NHSA) is a private not-
for-profit membership organization dedicated exclusively to meeting the
needs of Head Start children and their families. The Association
provides support for the entire Head Start family by advocating for
policies which provide high quality services to children and their
families; by providing extensive training and professional development
services to all Head Start staff; and by developing and disseminating
research, information, and resources that impact Head Start program
delivery. NHSA represents more than 900,000 children and their
families, 200,000 staff and 2,500 Head Start programs in America
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, for nearly 40 years, Members of Congress and
administration officials have worked side-by-side with the Head Start
community to identify an agenda for improvement so that Head Start
could meet the evolving challenges facing the program. We are deeply
saddened that, for the first time in the program's history, a
reauthorization bill may pass the House of Representatives on a
straight party line vote. We are heartened to read your comments that
this body will work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that Head Start
continues to be a quality program delivered to at-risk children across
the country.
As the Executive Director of the Holyoke-Chicopee-Springfield Head
Start program for 24 years, I have dedicated almost my entire adult
life working to ensure that Head Start continues to provide high
quality, comprehensive services to the poorest children in my
community; that we work collaboratively with other early childhood
programs in the State and with the public school system; and that the
program applies the best thinking in early childhood research in our
work with children.
I can tell you from first hand experience that Head Start does not
shy away from change--we embrace it. In fact, Head Start has seized
every opportunity to improve the services it provides for children and
families. We also know that this is not the time to inject chaos and
upheaval into Head Start by turning it over to even a limited number of
States. As State budgets are cut and services are scaled back, we need
Head Start now, more than ever before, as a stabilizing early childhood
force in poor communities. Any improvements to the program easily can
be accommodated within the existing structure of the Head Start
program.
NHSA is confident that any objective assessment of Head Start will
conclude what we ourselves have determined: Head Start provides real
and meaningful benefits, sustained over time, for our nation's neediest
children and families. At the same time, there clearly are ways to make
Head Start better and NHSA is prepared to work with the Senate to
ensure that this nearly 40-year-old program continues to grow and
improve. In this reauthorization, Congress should once again affirm the
success of this national treasure and expand the program's benefits to
every poor child and family across the nation.
THE HEAD START SUCCESS STORY
For more than 38 years, Head Start has been a beacon of hope for
low-income children and families. Its mission is straight forward: to
prepare children to succeed in school and to give them the tools
necessary to achieve their goals in life. There is abundant evidence
suggesting that Head Start has been successful in meeting its mission.
This success is rooted in its design, which recognizes that at-risk
children need comprehensive services in order to become ``school
ready.'' The program offers an array of services, with a strong
emphasis on pre-reading skills, mental and physical health services,
immunizations and nutrition services.\2\ We know that preparing
children to learn is about more than just teaching letters and numbers.
Head Start aims to give children the skills and abilities that will
serve them throughout their school careers--curiosity, an interest in
learning, and the ability to pay attention in class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Head Start Program Information Report for the 2001-2002
Program Year shows that Head Start programs have been providing
important comprehensive services to children and families. In Head
Start and Early Head Start: 866,005 children had a medical screening;
871,937 children were up-to-date on all their immunizations; 131,873
children were served by a mental health professional; 139,848 families
received emergency or crisis services; 31,908 children were treated for
anemia; 47,280 children were treated for asthma; 20,260 children were
treated for hearing difficulties; 39,681 children were treated for
being overweight; and 25,869 children were treated for vision problems.
In Head Start, 783,861 Head Start children had a dental examination,
and 75,279 children were diagnosed as having speech or language
impairments. In Early Head Start, 38,805 children had a dental
screening; 2,452 pregnant women received dental examinations and/or
treatments; 7,213 pregnant women received prenatal and postpartum
health care; and 7,121 pregnant women received prenatal education on
fetal development. See Head Start Program Information Report for the
2001-2002 Program Year. (2003, June 3). National Level Summary Report,
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, though Head Start generally is thought of as a program
that primarily serves children, it actually is a program that serves
families. Visit a Head Start center and you will see parents reading to
children, participating on policy councils, taking part in family
literacy training, or even studying for their GED. It is the
comprehensive nature of the services offered and the focus on the whole
family that distinguishes Head Start from more traditional early
childhood programs and explains its success.
The key to quality in Head Start are the program performance
standards that spell out what programs need to do to ensure that Head
Start children meet the high expectations Congress has set for them.
These performance standards govern the range, quality and intensity of
Head Start's comprehensive educational, health, nutrition, family
support, and parental involvement. Head Start has created a proven
formula for high quality services and developed a system to ensure that
programs deliver the quality services that Congress, parents and the
community expect.
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH CONCLUDES THAT HEAD START WORKS
Head Start is one of the most studied and evaluated early childhood
programs in America. The collective wisdom of these studies is
inescapable: Head Start delivers what it promises to this nation's
neediest children--a head start in preparing them for school and life.
Recent research findings from a rigorous and randomized
longitudinal study of Head Start graduates and their non-Head Start
peers in San Bernardino, California found that for every $1 invested in
these Head Start graduates, society receives nearly $9 in savings.
These tremendous benefits include increased earnings, employment, and
family stability and decreased welfare dependency, crime costs, grade
repetition and special education. Dr. Meier summarized his new findings
as follows: ``The current comprehensive characteristics of the Head
Start program and tested national performance standards constitute
exemplary child-care program leadership and favorably impact the entire
society's quality of preschool child nurturance and parent involvement.
This all further emphasizes the necessity and affordability of a high
quality preschool experience to prepare all of America's young citizens
for successful school entry and subsequent achievement.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Meier, J. (2003, June 20). Kindergarten Readiness Study: Head
Start Success. Interim Report. Preschool Services Department of San
Bernardino County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, rigorous studies have found that, after leaving the
program, children who attended Head Start are less likely to repeat a
grade, to require special education classes, or to commit crimes than
their non-Head Start peers.\4\ Head Start graduates have also been
found to be more likely to have higher achievement test scores, to
complete high school and college and to earn more than their peers who
did not have the benefit of a ``head start.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Barnett, W.S. (September 2002). The Battle Over Head Start:
What the Research Shows; Garces, E.D. Thomas, and J. Currie (September
2002). Longer-Term Effects on Head Start.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, both the most recent Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) Head Start Monitoring Report and the Family and Child
Experiences Survey (FACES) have found that Head Start programs provide
quality, comprehensive services to the children and families they serve
and compare favorably with other studies of preschool and child care
programs.\6\ And, we expect the school readiness of Head Start students
to show continued improvement in the FACES data as studies reflect the
enhanced literacy and numeracy components added to the Head Start
program in the late 1990s and fully implemented in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (January 2001).
Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance. Third
Progress Report, iv and 80; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2003, February 24). Report on Head Start Monitoring Fiscal
Year 2000, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Launched in 1997, the FACES initiative is an ongoing, national,
longitudinal study of the development of Head Start children and
families, the characteristics of their families, and the quality of
Head Start classrooms. FACES consists of two nationally stratified
random samples. The 1997 sample consists of 3,200 children and families
in 40 Head Start programs and the 2000 sample consists of 2,800
children and families in 43 different Head Start programs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003, May). Head
Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Program Performance, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key findings of FACES reveal that:
Head Start narrows the gap between Head Start children and
the general population of preschool-age children during the Head Start
program year on the key components of school readiness;
Head Start children leave the program ``ready to learn'';
Head Start children have increased their learning since
the 1998 Head Start reauthorization as the children in the FACES 2000
cohort showed greater gains in book knowledge, letter recognition and
print conventions than had the Head Start children in the 1997 FACES
cohort; and
Head Start children demonstrated a greater increase in
vocabulary and early writing than the typical child during the 2000-
2001 program year.
Despite these convincing results, some critics of the Head Start
program insist that it is not doing enough to close the learning gap
between Head Start children and their wealthier peers. It must be
emphasized that we have the highest expectations for Head Start
children and insist upon holding them to the highest possible
standards. At the same time, we have reasonable expectations of what
can be accomplished after just 1 or 2 years of Head Start. The
objective of Head Start is to narrow the gap between Head Start
children and their wealthier peers and to help poor children improve
their preparation for school and learning. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a
scholar at Columbia University, concludes, ``If policy makers believe
that offering early childhood intervention for 2 years will permanently
and totally reduce SES (socioeconomic status) disparities in children's
achievement, they may be engaging in magical thinking.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). ``Do You Believe in Magic? What We Can
Expect From Early Childhood Intervention Programs.'' Social Policy
Report. Society for Research in Child Development, 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, seven prominent early childhood education and
development scholars in a July 9, 2003 letter to members of Congress
contend, ``. . . what Head Start can do and what a recent U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services report concludes it can do, is
bolster children's school readiness.'' \9\ Head Start children have
shown that they are ready to learn by making progress in both the
short- and long-term. In a recent study, during the school year Head
Start children demonstrated increased scores in vocabulary, early
writing and early mathematics.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Letter from seven Early Childhood Education and Development
Experts to Members of Congress. (2003 July, 9), 1.
\10\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003, May).
Head Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child Perspective on Program
Performance, 11-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REAUTHORIZATION
Head Start remains as important today as it was 38 years ago,
helping children in poverty get the learning opportunities, nutritious
meals, health care and social and emotional support they need to enter
school ready to learn. The founding principles of Head Start--that
disadvantaged children need comprehensive, quality early education to
start school ready to learn--are no less critical today than they were
38 years ago.
Despite the impressive accomplishments of Head Start, NHSA and the
entire Head Start community are the first to acknowledge that we can do
an even better job on behalf of this Nation's neediest children. In
fact, throughout its history, Head Start has embraced change and has
never shied away from the kind of critical assessments that have
sparked the innovative and quality improvements central to the success
of the program. NHSA recognizes that the program is a dynamic one that
must constantly seek to improve services for children and their
families. As such, in the 2003 reauthorization, NHSA has identified and
is supporting a number of quality enhancements to the program,
including those discussed below.
Enhance teacher qualifications. Although our teachers are well
trained, motivated, and have many years of experience, we agree with
those who want to continue improving the training of the teachers in
the Head Start classroom. We understand the importance of teacher
qualifications. We were the first to insist that all teachers have at
least a Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential, which is an
intensive training and assessment of knowledge and practice in early
childhood education. We worked during the last reauthorization to
ensure that at least 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have an
associate degree or better by September 2003--a goal that already has
been met. Today, we are pleased to support recommendations that call
for a teacher with a bachelor's degree in every classroom, phased in
over an 8 year period, and contingent upon additional and adequate
funding that will allow programs to attract and retain such teachers.
Specifically, NHSA believes that any new requirement for bachelor's
degrees should take effect only if adequate and additional funding is
available for current teachers to return to school to meet this
requirement and for comparable pay once they have earned such a degree.
Further, NHSA supports a requirement that at least 50 percent of
teacher aides/assistants be required to have a CDA by 2008.
Require every Head Start program to have a career development plan
for all staff. Many Head Start programs already have career development
plans to ensure that all staff receive the training they need and want.
Nonetheless, it would be helpful to require that all Head Start
programs design career development plans for their staff so that they
receive the necessary guidance to obtain degrees, training, and the
specialized knowledge that will better enable them to better serve the
needs of Head Start children and families.
Create a new training and technical assistance system. NHSA
supports the creation of a new training and technical assistance system
that would address the comprehensive nature of Head Start and focus on
all the aspects of the Head Start program. This system should include
coordination with State Head Start Associations and State preschool
entities. This will not only ensure quality but improve the
coordination between State preschool programs and Head Start. At a
minimum, the training and technical assistance set aside must be
maintained at a level of two percent or greater so we can continue to
provide necessary professional development. Congress should mandate
that at least 50 percent of these funds be directed to Head Start
agencies to facilitate compliance with mandated program performance
standards. The remaining 50 percent should be designated as follows: 60
percent for the national training and technical assistance system of
State training offices and 40 percent for the administration of the
national CDA credentialing system and other initiatives to assist
programs in meeting the program performance standards. Congress should
further insist that no funds appropriated for training and technical
assistance be used for any purpose other than that stated in the
authorizing language.
Strengthen collaboration and strategic State-level planning. As the
organization that pushed for 50 collaboration grants, we understand the
need for Head Start to coordinate with other Federal and State early
care programs. NHSA supports provisions that will encourage
collaboration and strategic State-level planning among Head Start,
education and child care programs to deliver services that help
children succeed in school while meeting the needs of parents. Congress
also is called upon to provide additional funding that will help these
State planning activities.
Increase the Early Head Start set-aside and develop a seamless
program. More and more research has found that learning begins at an
earlier age than once was thought to be the case. To address the needs
of infants, the Early Head Start program was established. This
successful program currently is serving children pre-natal to the age
of 3. However, because of a lack of funding, it is estimated that the
program has been able to serve only about three percent of eligible
kids.\11\ We believe it is time to make a serious commitment to
providing seamless services to children pre-natal to the age of 5. To
accomplish this goal, we propose that the Early Head Start set-aside be
increased and that Head Start grantees be given the flexibility to
provide services to children pre-natal to age 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Head Start Bureau data; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and
the Bureau of the Census. (2001). Table 23. Single Years of Age--
Poverty Status of People in 2001. Accessed at http://
ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/pov /new23--001.htm on October 10,
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow Head Start programs the flexibility to enroll more families
above the income guidelines and to serve the working poor. Currently,
Head Start mostly serves families earning at or below 100 percent of
the poverty level. Right now, a family can be poor enough to receive
Medicaid and Food Stamps but not be poor enough for Head Start. The
Head Start Act allows programs to enroll 10 percent of their families
earning above the poverty line. With the passage of welfare reform in
1996, many families that now are working find themselves slightly over
the poverty line and thus ineligible for Head Start. To remedy this
situation, NHSA proposes that Head Start programs be allowed to serve
25 percent of their families above the income guidelines. To ensure
that the most deserving families are served first, safeguards should be
put in place to ensure programs serve the neediest children before
reaching beyond the poverty level.
Fully fund Head Start. Head Start has enough funding to serve about
six out of every 10 income eligible children. Assuming that 8 out of 10
income eligible children would like to enroll in Head Start, it is
estimated that 252,555 income eligible children were unable to enroll
in Head Start during fiscal year 2003 because of a lack of funding.\12\
Unfortunately, the administration's proposed funding increase of $148
million in fiscal year 2004 is not enough even to keep pace with
inflation and provides no funds for quality improvements. Fully funding
Head Start is not a question of money or resources; it is simply a
question of priorities and values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Head Start Bureau data; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and
the Bureau of the Census. (2001). Table 23. Single Years of Age--
Poverty Status of People in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS ON H.R. 2210
As noted above, the government's own research and independent
studies reach the same conclusion: Head Start is a program that works.
NHSA shares the president's desire to enhance the literacy and language
components of Head Start, and to improve the coordination of Head Start
with State preschool and child care programs. At the same time, it is
our position that these goals can be met within the structure of the
current program.
According to the sponsors of H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of
2003, the main goals of the legislation are to close the school
readiness gap between young low-income children and other children upon
entering school and to promote collaboration and alignment at the State
level between Head Start and other early childhood education programs.
We agree that these are important goals. However, they are unlikely to
be achieved under H.R. 2210. Though there are positive aspects of the
legislation, they are far outweighed by the provisions with which we
have very serious concerns, and which we believe will undermine the
program and lead to its dissolution.
Among our most serious concerns with H.R. 2210 are that it:
Dismantles the national program by allowing eight States
the option to receive Head Start funds in the form of a block grant
without full application of the current Head Start Performance
Standards, adequate accountability, or sufficient coordination
requirements;
Reduces the Federal commitment to training and technical
assistance, a key to any strategy aimed at improving program quality;
and
Establishes a set of significant new goals for Head Start
programs without providing the funding that would be needed to meet the
goals.
It is not apparent to us how shifting Head Start to a block grant
program to even eight States--without the full application of the
program performance standards and without adequate accountability or
sufficient coordination requirements--will do anything to improve the
quality of Head Start. Instead, such a shift likely will result in
chaos for the immediate future as cash-strapped States figure out how
to use the funds. At the same time, sending Head Start dollars to the
States will most assuredly lead to a dilution of the quality of Head
Start. While bipartisan Congresses have sought to strengthen the
program's performance standards and enhance monitoring requirements,
the administration's plan would instead rely on the good will of debt-
ridden States to ensure quality.
While Head Start provides low-income children and families with
high quality and comprehensive services, there is no guarantee these
standards or services will be maintained if States are given control
over the funding. Though we don't doubt the sincerity of the States'
interest in early childhood development, we do know that the States
vary considerably in the services they provide in their early childhood
programs. Further, a State's commitment to providing quality
prekindergarten services can be subject to changing priorities among
administrations and budget constraints.
NHSA hopes that Congress will take steps to improve the quality of
the literacy and language skills training in Head Start programs,
rather than diverting resources, time, and focus to an untested idea.
Literacy and language skills training have been part of the mission of
the program since its inception, and we will work closely with Members
of the Committee and this Congress to raise the bar for our Nation's
most vulnerable children. It is our hope, however, that this goal can
be accomplished without dismantling or weakening the comprehensive
components of Head Start that are so critical for preparing children to
succeed in school and to develop strong literacy skills.
Prepared Statement of Amy Wilkins
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to speak today. I am honored to join today's panel to discuss the
reauthorization of Head Start.
My name is Amy Wilkins. I am the Executive Director of the Trust
for Early Education (TEE). TEE was established in 2002 to promote high
quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten programs for all 3- and 4-year-
olds.
While the school readiness problem is most acute for low-income
children and children of color, large percentages of middle income and
white children are entering school without the skills they need to do
their best. In fact, we know that children who recognize their letters
before entering kindergarten become stronger readers sooner than
children who do not. We also know that about one-quarter of white
children and about one-third of middle class children enter
kindergarten without knowing their letters. More startling, perhaps, is
data published last Fall by the Economic Policy Institute, which
indicates that the math and reading skill levels of children from
families in the middle socio-economic status (SES) quintile are closer
to the skill levels of children in the lowest SES quintile--our very
poorest children--than they are to the skill levels of children in the
highest SES quintile.
The global economy is demanding ever higher levels of skill and
knowledge from all of our citizens. Given this, TEE believes we must
quickly and comprehensively address the school readiness issue faced by
this nation and that the most effective response to the issue is high
quality pre-kindergarten for all.
TEE works at both the State and Federal levels because we believe
that it is neither possible nor desirable to build the system that will
provide access to high quality pre-kindergarten to all children without
strong coordination between Federal and State policies and funding.
In the last 13 months, TEE has distributed over $3 million in
grants to advocates in nine States (Illinois, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina and
Oklahoma) to help them advance the cause of high quality pre-
kindergarten at the State level.
Our work at the Federal level has convinced us there is not only
the need to coordinate Federal policy with State policy more closely,
but also a need to better coordinate policy between Federal programs
and agencies. As you work on reauthorizing Head Start, it is critical
that you coordinate these efforts with the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act, which will soon come before you.
For more than three decades, Head Start has provided pre-
kindergarten for children living in poverty. The program has, without
question, achieved a great deal of success. The Family and Child
Experiences Survey (FACES) data from both 1999-98 and 2000-2001 suggest
that a year of Head Start boosts children's knowledge and skills, and
narrows the school entry skills gap between them and more affluent
children.
Head Start has provided millions of our most vulnerable children a
foundation of integrated health, nutrition, academic and family support
services. Nonetheless, when Head Start children enter kindergarten, a
gap remains.
Our paramount goal for this reauthorization of Head Start should be
to improve Head Start in order to narrow the gap even more. As this
Committee considers the many issues which will arise during this
reauthorization we urge you to evaluate each policy choice with this
goal in mind. We ask you to ask yourselves this question: ``Is this
policy likely to help narrow the school readiness gap?"
The President and many members of this Committee have noted that
narrowing the gap will require that Head Start do more to promote
strong language and literacy skills in the children it serves. We
agree, but this still begs the question how best to do this. TEE
believes that the single most important step that this Committee can
take in this reauthorization to boost early literacy skills of Head
Start children is to ensure that every Head Start classroom is staffed
by a lead teacher who has at least a bachelor's degree and specialized
training in early education. In fact, we believe that all the other
steps that you may take to narrow the gap and to promote early literacy
will amount to little without an increase in the percentage of well-
educated Head Start teachers.
As important as it is for Head Start to do more to enhance the
intellectual growth of children, it cannot be asked to do so by cutting
back on other critical services that have demonstrable, positive
impacts on school readiness. The health, nutrition, and family support
services that Head Start provides are the foundation of its success and
must not be compromised. The truism that children who are hungry or
sick cannot learn has and should continue to guide Head Start policy.
It is equally true that well-fed, healthy children who are not well
taught cannot learn either. We cannot sacrifice one aspect of
children's development to promote another.
BETTER QUALIFIED TEACHERS LEAD TO BETTER OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS
Well-educated teachers improve the quality of pre-kindergarten
programs by building strong academic skills in children and promoting
positive social and emotional development. Research indicates that
literate, engaged, and attentive teachers--teachers with bachelor's
degrees--help children learn and develop the knowledge and skills they
need to do well in kindergarten and beyond.
Strong reading skills are the foundation for success in school and
in life. Vocabulary is a critical building block for later literacy.
Research shows that low-income 3-year-olds have vocabularies that are
only about half the size of vocabularies of 3-year-olds living in our
most affluent families. As a result, without powerful interventions to
help build their vocabularies, low-income children have more difficulty
than their more fortunate peers mastering basic reading skills.
Research has established a clear link between the number and
complexity of words spoken by adults--including parents and teachers--
and the number and complexity of words spoken by children. When
children are exposed to larger vocabularies and more complex speech,
they respond with greater comprehension and more complex speech
themselves (Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman, and Levine, 2002). It
would seem then, that in order to boost vocabularies--and thereby lay
the foundation for other early reading skills--we must provide Head
Start children with highly literate teachers who themselves have rich
and robust vocabularies.
An analysis by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) suggests that
adults with bachelor's degrees have higher literacy levels than do
adults with less formal education. Working with the data from The
National Adult Literacy Survey, ETS finds that adults with only
associate's degrees are twice as likely as those with bachelor's
degrees to have literacy skills below the ``competent'' level.
Therefore, requiring that Head Start teachers have bachelor's degrees--
not just associate's degrees--will increase the chances that children
in the program will experience richer, more complex speech, and be
better able to build stronger vocabularies that are positively
associated with later reading success.
The logic of this notion is supported by the findings of The
National Child Care Staffing Study, which concluded that teachers with
more formal education were more sensitive than teachers with less
formal education, and that children with more sensitive teachers
received higher language scores than did children in classrooms with
less educated teachers (Howes, Phillips & Whitebook 1992; Whitebook et
al., 1990).
But well-educated teachers do more than simply build the framework
for later literacy. They support strong social and emotional
development in the children they teach. Three of the largest and most
reliable studies of early education and care--The Cost Quality and
Outcomes Study, The Florida Quality Improvement Study, and The National
Child Care Staffing Study--each found very strong evidence of the
positive impacts that teachers with bachelor's degrees have on overall
classroom quality. These studies suggest that teachers with bachelor's
degrees are:
Less harsh, critical and punitive than teachers with less
formal education;
Less detached from their students than teachers without
degrees; and
More engaged with and attentive to their students than
teachers with less formal education.
The studies also found that children in classrooms with teachers
with bachelor's degrees engaged in more creative peer play than did
children in classrooms with teachers with less formal education.
Moreover, the studies demonstrated that children in classrooms with
teachers with more formal education spent less time in ``aimless
wondering'' than did children in classrooms with teachers with less
formal education.
The findings of all of these studies are supported by what we know
happens in good pre-kindergarten programs. The most powerful and
renowned early childhood education programs for low-income children--
the programs we all reference when extolling the benefits of pre-
kindergarten for low-income children--such as the Perry Preschool
Program, the Chicago Parent Child Parent Centers, and the Abecedarian
Preschool Program are staffed by teachers with at least 4-year degrees.
Children participating in these programs:
Enter school better prepared to learn;
Are less likely to be retained in grade;
Are less likely to be placed in special education; and
Are more likely to graduate from high school than their
peers who have not had the benefit of such high quality programs.
If we want the same results from Head Start, we must staff Head
Start with the same caliber of teachers employed by these exemplary
programs.
Given all of the evidence suggesting that positive outcomes for
children are strongly linked to the presence of well-educated teachers,
it should come as no surprise that many of the most respected research
institutions in the field of early childhood education, including: the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Institute for Early Education Research, the Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute and the Bush Center in Child
Development and Social Policy at Yale University, support the notion of
increasing the percentage of teachers with bachelor's degrees in the
Head Start program.
Staffing pre-kindergarten programs for low-income children with
well-educated teachers is not a revolutionary policy. In fact, many
States are ahead of the Federal Government in this area. Half of the
States with pre-kindergarten programs already require that all of their
teachers have 4-year college degrees. In an area as critical as the
qualifications of the program's teaching force, Head Start cannot now
lag behind the State programs that were established to emulate it.
WE CAN GET THERE
Even with solid research pointing to the need to put a teacher with
a bachelor's degree in every Head Start classroom, there are some who
say it cannot be done. They insist that asking the program to
substantially ratchet up the quality of its teaching force may be
desirable, but that it is unrealistic to ask for so great an
improvement. TEE believes it can--with will, innovation, coordination
and resources--be done. Consider the recent success of New Jersey.
In 1998, the New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled on a school
finance equity case known as Abbott v. Burke. Part of the Court's
decision required the State to establish high quality pre-kindergarten
programs in the 30 highest poverty school districts in the State. The
court later required that each of these programs be staffed by lead
teachers with bachelor's degrees within 4 years. At the time of the
court order about 35 percent of teachers in the pre-kindergarten
programs in Abbott districts held bachelor's degrees. Today, about 80
percent of the teachers in these programs hold 4-year degrees and State
certification. Kindergarten and first-grade teachers in the Abbott
districts are already reporting that children are coming into their
classrooms better prepared than in the past.
In order to raise teacher qualifications in accordance with the
court order, the State created and executed a plan that included:
Realistic but ambitious timelines;
A strengthened and improved teacher education
infrastructure;
Scholarships, release time, and substitutes for teachers;
and
Improved teacher compensation and attempts to reach salary
parity with kindergarten teachers.
Today, TEE and the Schumann Fund for New Jersey are releasing a
paper on what it took for the State of New Jersey to meet the court
mandate. The New Jersey experience provides important lessons that I
hope this Committee will consider.
Not all of the steps that New Jersey has taken can be addressed
through the Head Start bill, but this Committee also has jurisdiction
over the approaching reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. By
coordinating policy between the two bills and using the resources of
Head Start and Titles II, III and IV of the Higher Education Act, the
Committee can lay the foundation of a strong system that will make it
possible not only for every Head Start classroom to have a lead teacher
with a bachelor's degree and specialized training in early education by
2011--but also to improve the qualifications of teachers working in all
settings that serve 3- and 4-year-old children.
THE TRUST FOR EARLY EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
We strongly urge this Committee to require all Head Start teachers
have bachelor's degrees with specialized training in early education
within 8 years. The House's action on this issue, while significant and
laudable, is limited. If, as a national average, only half of the
teachers in Head Start are required to have a bachelor's degree, it is
very possible that not a single State represented on this Committee
would see any improvement in the number of teachers with bachelor's
degrees.
While TEE is pleased that the House Committee has recognized the
need to increase the percentage of well-educated teachers in Head
Start, we call on the Senate to build on and expand on the work of the
Education and Workforce Committee by both increasing the percentage of
teachers with bachelor's degrees in Head Start classrooms beyond the
level established in the House bill and making the resources available
to educate, attract and retain those teachers.
TEE has estimated the cost of providing Head Start teachers with
scholarships and other supports needed to earn bachelor's degrees at
about $1 billion. We have estimated the cost of appropriate increases
in Head Start teacher salaries at about $6 billion over 8 years, with
about $3 billion needed by the end of this reauthorization to put the
program on a solid path to reach the final goal. Some may balk at
theses costs; however, we believe that they are an indispensable
investment in better school readiness outcomes for Head Start children.
In addition, TEE supports several other changes to the Head Start
law to enhance the quality of the teaching force, including:
Adding a requirement for annual center-by-center public
reporting on the educational attainment of all teachers. This will help
parents, the public, and Congress better monitor progress toward the
important teacher education goal established by this bill.
Amending the existing sections of the law which outline
requirements for Head Start programs' salary scales to require that
they relate directly to the level of teachers' formal education. It is
entirely reasonable for the Federal Government to demand higher levels
of formal education for Head Start teachers. However, as we demand more
education from them we must compensate them at higher levels.
If we require that Head Start teachers have bachelor's degrees and
specialized training in early education, we will be requiring that they
meet essentially the same requirements that most States have
established for their kindergarten teachers. As it currently stands,
Head Start teachers with bachelor's degrees earn only half as much as
public school kindergarten teachers. Without improved wages, Head Start
teachers with bachelor's degrees will not stay in Head Start programs.
In New Jersey, which experienced mixed success in raising compensation
for degreed teachers, 17 Head Start centers lost 125 certified teachers
in 3 years. Such high turnover will not only limit Head Start's ability
to improve quality, but high turnover will also be detrimental to
children's social and emotional development which depends, at least in
part, on their ability to build long term trusting relationships with
their teachers. Raising Head Start teacher salaries so that they are
commensurate with those of kindergarten teachers with similar
credentials will encourage the best teachers to stay in Head Start and
will help attract a new, highly educated workforce of potential
teachers for Head Start.
The issue here, however, is more than an issue of increased
investment; it is also a question of coordinated policy between Federal
programs. This Committee will undoubtedly spend a great deal of time
discussing how Head Start programs can be coordinated with State pre-
kindergarten programs. The Trust for Early Education is eager to
participate in these discussions in order to help create a system that
is dedicated to providing access to high quality pre-kindergarten to
all children. But we would urge you to remember the need for
coordination between Federal programs as well. The New Jersey success
story is largely a story of coordinated effort. When this Committee
takes up the Higher Education Act we recommend that you:
Expand the use of Title II funds to cover the improvement,
expansion and creation of post-secondary education programs for
preparation of pre-kindergarten teachers as well as K-12 teachers as
the House did in H.R. 2211;
Expand the provision of Title II which provides loan
forgiveness to K-12 teachers working in high-poverty schools to include
teachers in Head Start and other pre-kindergarten programs serving low-
income children.
Attend to student aid policy that may make it difficult
for Head Start teachers and other working adults to balance the demands
of work, family and post-secondary education; and
Encourage greater cooperation between 2- and 4-year
colleges around the transfer of course credits.
CONCLUSION
Head Start has been successful for so long because it has evolved
and incorporated the best research into its programs and practices. The
single best way to continue to improve the quality of Head Start is to
ensure that teachers with a bachelor's degree and specialized training
in early education lead each and every Head Start classroom. It is time
to follow the best models and give Head Start children the best chance
for success.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify.
Prepared Statement of Catholic Charities USA
Catholic Charities USA is a national network of 1,600 local
Catholic Charities agencies and institutions working to reduce poverty,
support families, and build communities throughout the United States.
Catholic Charities programs serve over 10 million people of all
religions--and no religion--and of every racial, ethnic, and social
background. Catholic Charities agencies have operated Head Start sites
since the program's inception in 1965 and currently serve over 20,000
children directly in Head Start programs. Catholic Charities agencies
also serve hundreds of thousands of Head Start children and their
families through other services such as wrap-around child-care, family
counseling, job training and housing.
As the Senate prepares legislation, we would like to offer the
following recommendations for maintaining and improving the quality of
the Head Start program. These come from our 38 years of experience in
running the Head Start program, as well as reaction to the ``School
Readiness Act of 2003'' (H.R. 2210) that is pending in the House.
First, we support maintaining Head Start as a Federal program that
directly funds local sponsoring organizations. It is hard to see what
is to be gained by adding an additional State layer of governmental
bureaucracy to Head Start, as is proposed in H.R. 2210. Local
communities, including the parents of children in Head Start, are best
able to discern what the children of that community need. Local faith-
based organizations, community centers and schools that are known and
trusted run many Head Start programs. Involving parents in the program
is the hallmark of Head Start.
Head Start helps children succeed in school, not by just teaching
children reading readiness, but also by strengthening their families
and teaching parents so that they can then help teach their own
children. For example, in the fall of 1979, Julia, a single mother of
three, enrolled two of her three children in a Catholic Charities Head
Start program located in a housing project in Cleveland. Julia had
heard about the Head Start program from another Head Start parent at
the laundry-mat. Julia was shy, introverted and somewhat non-responsive
to the questions asked during the intake process, and the Family
Service Worker had to repeat most of the questions. Julia seemed to
lack confidence when questioned about goals for her family.
At first, Julia seldom volunteered in the classroom nor attended
the monthly parent meetings, so Head Start staff made a series of home
visits, which encouraged Julia to participate in parent activities at
the Head Start center.
With the support of Head Start staff, Julia decided to enroll in
adult education classes and earned her high school diploma. A Head
Start Family Service Worker provided her tutoring, and Julia graduated
from the program in 1981. She then began working for Head Start as a
part-time Family Service Worker. It has been almost 26 years since
Julia first walked into the Head Start center.
Julia now has a bachelor's degree in social work from a local
university, supervises a staff of seven and has set a remarkable
example for her own children. Julia is just one of many who have never
forgotten the difference Head Start made in their lives and made them
better parents.
We acknowledge and applaud the efforts of Congress to encourage
partnerships between government and faith-based organizations.
Nonetheless, faith-based organizations could encounter new obstacles to
sponsorship of Head Start if Title II of the House bill, which would
allow eight States to take over administration of the program, were to
become law. Thirty-seven States have some version of the Blaine
amendment in their constitutions or statutes that could prohibit
contracts between their State departments of education--the likely
State administering agencies--and religious organizations. Moreover,
State education establishments are likely to view public schools and
secular agencies, their traditional constituencies, as the natural
choice for administering Head Start programs.
Even with a workable correction in this area, Catholic Charities
USA has very serious concerns about giving States control of Head
Start. State budget shortfalls are already forcing severe cuts in
programs for children and families, including many States' own early
childhood efforts. The current capacity of State Governments to
exercise leadership and responsibility for Head Start is very
questionable. States have already begun to make dramatic cuts in early
childhood programs. For example, Ohio has lowered eligibility for
child-care subsidies from 185 percent of the Federal poverty level to
165 percent of the Federal poverty level, and Massachusetts made a $10
million cut to their school readiness program. Additionally, State
education departments are struggling to implement the ``No Child Left
Behind Act'' without the promised increased in Federal funds. It is
hard to see how the State ``demonstration projects'' would contribute
more than another layer of bureaucracy.
One of the concerns of Congress is a lack of collaboration between
Head Start programs and State educational programs. Our experience is
that Head Start programs do collaborate with State educational
programs, albeit sporadically. Fostering collaboration could be
achieved without surrendering control over Head Start to the States.
For example, Head Start grantees could be required to demonstrate in
their applications how they will collaborate with pre-school and other
early childhood programs. In addition, States could be required, as a
condition of receiving Federal ESEA funding, to show how they
coordinate and collaborate with Head Start programs.
The ``School Readiness Act of 2003'' raises further concerns and
questions for us. While encouraging and rewarding Head Start programs
for hiring teachers with Bachelor's degrees is a positive step, rapid
implementation may be difficult.
Head Start teachers currently are paid $21,000 annually on
average.
Once Head Start teachers have a degree, they will be
recruited by public schools for elementary grade levels where they will
receive pay better and have full benefits.
It is our hope that legislation proposed in the Senate will
recognize the comprehensive nature of Head Start. Any reauthorization
of Head Start should include a commitment to health and nutrition,
social and cognitive development and services reducing or eliminating
any barriers to a child's success in school. Head Start recognizes that
a child is part of a family system. Family problems and challenges:
loss of income, siblings with problems, violence at home or in the
community, all affect the ability of a child to learn. For example,
Jerry, a 4 year-old, who was enrolled in a Catholic Charities Head
Start class, had a 15 year-old brother who was involved in a gang and
had started skipping school, creating stress and conflict in Jerry's
home. Jerry's Head Start teachers knew about the situation, because
they could see the effects on Jerry who was misbehaving and unable to
focus. The Head Start staff reached out to the family and offered
resources to help Jerry's brother to get out of the gang and back into
school. This intervention not only improved the home environment, but
also provided Jerry and his brother an opportunity to succeed in
school. It is unclear whether States would continue this highly
effective and comprehensive approach to Head Start.
We would like to acknowledge the Department of Health and Human
Services' hard work to improve the quality of Head Start by increasing
accountability, increasing training and professional development, and
integrating school readiness into the program since the last
reauthorization. In addition, the agency has continued to prioritize
the comprehensive services of health, nutrition, and social skills that
make Head Start such a high quality program.
Catholic Charities USA supports a reauthorization of Head Start
that improves upon, but remains consistent with the original design of
the program, ``to help break the cycle of poverty by providing
preschool children of low-income families with a comprehensive program
to meet their emotional, social, health, nutritional and psychological
needs.'' We urge you to support a reauthorization that would:
maintain the integrity of the Head Start Program;
provide funding to serve all eligible children;
increase resources to enhance literacy, numeracy and
school readiness skills; and
improve teacher training and professional development.
In addition, we support the proposal in H.R. 2210 to apply to the
Head Start program the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
which allows religious organizations to consider religion in employment
decisions.
We encourage members of the Senate to rigorously examine the Head
Start program so that low-income children may receive the best pre-
school education available. However, we caution against any major
``experimentation'' with this successful program. These children only
have 2 years to get ready for school. They will not get those years
back if the experiment fails.
Your efforts to bring sufficient funding and enhanced quality to
the reauthorization of the Head Start Program will afford many poor
children ages 0-5 and their families an opportunity for a comprehensive
early educational experience. Catholic Charities USA will be happy to
continue working with you in this regard.
Statement of Stanley B. Peck
INTRODUCTION
The American Dental Hygienists' Association (ADHA) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony regarding ``Reauthorizing Head Start:
Preparing Children to Succeed in School and in Life.'' ADHA applauds
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for
holding this important hearing on Head Start.
ADHA is the largest national organization representing the
professional interests of the more than 120,000 dental hygienists
across the country. Dental hygienists are preventive oral health
professionals who are licensed in each of the fifty states. Dental
hygienists across the country provide oral health services to Head
Start children. Please visit ADHA's web site at < < www.adha.org > > .
As prevention specialists, dental hygienists understand that
recognizing the connection between oral health and total health can
prevent disease, treat problems while they are still manageable and
conserve critical health care dollars. Dental hygienists are committed
to improving the nation's oral health, an integral part of total
health. Indeed, all Americans can enjoy good oral health because the
principal oral maladies (caries, gingivitis and periodontitis) are
fully preventable with the provision of regular preventive oral health
services such as those provided by dental hygienists.
The Head Start program is designed to foster healthy development in
low-income children and includes a program service area in health.
According to the Head Start Bureau, ``Wellness is recognized as a
significant contributor to each child's ability to thrive and develop.
Accordingly, health screenings evaluate the child's overall health
status and regular health checkups and good practices in oral health,
hygiene, nutrition, personal care and safety are incorporated into the
program.'' Head Start is the largest federal program with early
childhood development and school readiness as its primary focus, and is
the centerpiece of the federal government's efforts to prepare the
nation's most disadvantaged children for school. ADHA strongly supports
the Head Start program and applauds its recognition that good oral
health is a fundamental part of the wellness essential to success in
school.
BLOCK GRANTING HEAD START WOULD THREATEN THE ESSENTIAL HEALTH COMPONENT
OF THE PROGRAM
ADHA is pleased that the Senate HELP Committee's reauthorization of
Head Start is not expected to include President Bush's proposal for a
pilot program to block grant Head Start in eight states. The block
grant proposal threatens to dismantle the existing federal system which
has effectively served at-risk children for nearly forty years.
Changing Head Start to a block grant jeopardizes the health component
of Head Start. This committee's effort to preserve Head Start as a
federal program will ensure that poor children throughout the United
States will have access to the medical care that is requisite to ensure
that a child can learn. The health component of Head Start is vital to
ensure that Head Start children are prepared to succeed in school.
Indeed, sound health is a foundation for advancement in learning and
social development.
ENSURING ACCESS TO DENTAL CARE
An astounding number of children under the age of five suffer from
dental disease. Dental caries (tooth decay) is the single largest
health problem among children. Dental caries is five times more common
than asthma. Although dental caries is both treatable and preventable,
many children fail to receive the proper dental screening needed to
ensure treatment or prevention of the disease.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has confirmed in two separate
reports to Congress that ``dental disease is a chronic problem among
many low-income and vulnerable populations'' and ``poor children have
five times more untreated dental caries (cavities) than children in
higher-income families.'' The GAO further found that the major factor
contributing to the low use of dental services among low-income persons
who have coverage for dental services is ``finding dentists to treat
them.'' Increased utilization of dental hygiene services--appropriately
linked to the services of dentists--is critical to addressing the
nation's crisis in access to oral health care for vulnerable
populations. Indeed, ADHA is committed to working with Congress to
improve access to oral health care services, particularly for our
nation's children.
Children coping with severe dental problems suffer acute tooth ache
and pain, thus inhibiting them from concentrating on learning in the
classroom. These children miss twelve times as many days for dental
problems compared to those children with access to dental care. Failure
to correct dental problems at an early age can lead to a young adult's
decreased desire to thrive in school, lower self esteem, and speech
impediments.
Head Start has been overwhelmingly successful with providing at-
risk children with dental care when Medicaid and SCHIP have fallen
short. Disadvantaged preschoolers enrolled in Head Start are three
times more likely to receive a dental screening compared to other
disadvantaged children in Medicaid. In 2001, 81% of children in Head
Start received a dental screening. Thirty percent of those children
screened needed dental care, and 77% of them received it. By contrast,
the GAO estimates that only 21% of two to five year olds below the
poverty line received dental screening. This concrete evidence
demonstrates that Head Start plays a vital role in ensuring that poor
children not only have health insurance coverage but that they actually
receive dental care.
Establishing Head Start as a block grant to states lifts stringent
federal regulations, such as delineating when a child should receive
medical care, attached to Head Start funding. Currently, federal
regulations require Head Start grantees to assist with establishing a
dental home for children, to provide oral screenings by dental
professionals, to help families schedule appointments and coordinate
treatment with a local dentist, and to follow-up on documented dental
problems. Given Medicaid's already poor dental coverage for
disadvantage children, preschoolers could be left with very limited or
no dental coverage with relaxed regulations.
STRENGTHENING HEAD START'S ORAL HEALTH COMPONENT
With the reauthorization of Head Start before the Senate HELP
Committee, committee members have a momentous opportunity to improve
and strengthen an invaluable federal program that provides America's
poor children with wonderful educational and developmental experiences.
In addition to rejecting the President's block grant proposal, we urge
the committee to consider: supporting and expanding interagency
activities between Head Start and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau
at the Health Resources and Services Administration; ensuring that any
Medicaid reform effort does not alter currently required pediatric
dental and health benefits in Medicaid's EPSDT program; and encouraging
Early Head Start to update its performance recommendations that dental
supervision begins by the age of one.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the American Dental Hygienists' Association appreciates
this opportunity to provide written testimony on ``Reauthorizing Head
Start: Preparing Children to Succeed in School and in Life.'' ADHA
understands the need to improve Head Start's results within math and
literacy; however, we do not believe the solution lies in cutting the
health component of the program. Indeed, the health aspect of Head
Start has been remarkably successful with ensuring proper medical care
for participants when other government programs have failed. The
cornerstone to learning is sound health. ADHA is committed to working
with lawmakers, educators, researchers, policymakers, the public and
dental and non-dental groups to improve the nation's oral health which,
as Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General so rightly
recognizes, is a vital part of overall health and well-being.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit the views of the American
Dental Hygienists' Association. Please contact our Washington Counsel,
Karen Sealander of McDermott, Will & Emery (202/756-8024), with
questions or for further information.
Statement of Manda Lopez
Thank you Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Kennedy and honorable
members of the Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for this
opportunity to submit testimony. It is critical that an open discussion
take place regarding the changes that are being proposed for the 2003
Head Start Reauthorization and that particular attention be paid to
some of our nation's most vulnerable children.
I submit this testimony on behalf of the 28 Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start programs that are members of the National Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start Association and the parents and children they
serve.
Our message to you regarding reauthorization of Head Start is
twofold. First, we urge you to consider the unique nature of Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start programs as you craft the reauthorization
legislation and we support maintaining the Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start Programs Branch as a critical step in that direction. Secondly,
we urge you to ensure that this legislation devotes additional
resources to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start in order to address the
documented funding shortfall that prevents more than 80% of the
eligible children from receiving services through our programs.
BACKGROUND ON MIGRANT AND SEASONAL HEAD START
As you know, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs were launched
as a response to the needs of migrant farmworker families and our
programs are designed to address the specific needs and challenges
faced by these families.
Migrant and seasonal farmworkers work in various sectors of our
nation's agriculture industry--from harvesting to sorting to processing
and everything in between. While it is hard work and requires special
skills, most farmworker families earn less than $10,000/year and have
no health benefits according to a study submitted to Congress in 2000
by the United States Department of Labor.
Due to the nature of farm labor, children need full day services--
often from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and often 6 days a week. In many states,
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs operate from May to October,
rather than the typical school year schedule, and of course, many of
the families and children are on the move for much of the year and need
services at different times, in different states and locations.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs serve nearly 32,000
migrant children and nearly 2,500 seasonal farmworker children
annually, operating in 38 states in every region of the country.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs were the first Head Start
programs to serve infants and toddlers and today more than two-thirds
of the children in the program are infants and toddlers.
For migrant and seasonal farmworker families having access to Head
Start is a public health and safety issue. In 1992, the General
Accounting Office found that at least one-third of all migrant
children, as young as 10, work in the fields with their families either
to contribute to the family income or because no child care was
available. It can easily be argued that a lack of services in this
situation contributes to child labor in this country. Children in the
field are at risk of injuries from farm equipment, over exposure to the
elements, pesticide poisoning, and of course the long term health risks
associated with exposure to chemicals. In many cases, if a slot is not
available in a Migrant and Seasonal Head Start program or no Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start program exists in the area there is no
alternative but to take a child to the field or perhaps leave them
unattended in the labor camp.
ENSURE THAT THE UNIQUE ELEMENTS OF MIGRANT AND SEASONAL HEAD START ARE
ADDRESSED
We recommend that the following issues be addressed in the
reauthorization legislation to ensure that the unique elements of
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start are maintained and that the particular
barriers that face our programs are taken into consideration.
Federal Programs Branch or Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
We feel strongly that the Federal Programs Branch for Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start be maintained. Over the past year we have voiced
concern with how Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs would be
treated if states were granted some or all authority to administer Head
Start program funds and we have consistently urged both the
Administration as well as members of Congress to consider the unique
elements of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Program when exploring the
state option proposal.
There are several reasons for maintaining the federal branch for
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start. First, the vast majority of children
in Migrant and Seasonal Head Start are migrants and often reside in
more than one state through the course of the year. It is unrealistic
to expect that states would or could provide services to temporary
residents. Secondly, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs are
unique in that they provide full day services and are targeted to
harvesting seasons which vary from state to state. And lastly, the
majority of children served in Migrant and Seasonal Head Start are
infants and toddlers, who with their parents are learning a second
language. Loss of this specialized early involvement would be a huge
step backward when considering the brain development research regarding
emergent literacy.
Training and Technical Assistance
Due to the unique needs of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
programs, training and technical assistance is critical to the
programs. While changes are currently being made by the Head Start
Bureau to streamline training, it is the hope of Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start programs that the training model will take into
consideration the approaches to training and technical assistance that
have been historically successful for our programs.
The mobility of our families and the specific linguistic and
culturally relevant needs are among the factors that should be
considered when designing a training model in addition to the fact that
we have programs operating in 38 states and as families cross state
lines for work our programs are working to see that they continue to
have access to services.
Therefore it is far more efficient to maintain the federal nature
of the TA for the same reasons that the program funds have been
maintained. For instance the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs
come together for an annual training conference funded by Training and
Technical Assistance funds which ensures that our professional staff
are receiving program specific training. Issues such as transitioning
children and their records from state to state and how to better
coordinate the transition of records so that children's health records
follow them and as a result children are not receiving multiple
immunizations. For children with special needs their records and IEP's
(Individualized Education Program) or ISFP's (Individualized Family
Service Plans) follow them as well so that programs can continue
therapy without a delay in services.
If all technical assistance funds are directed to specific
activities such as assisting local Head Start Agencies or programs to
meet performance standards, we urge you to include specific language
setting aside funds to support the training and technical assistance
needs of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs. Unless specifically
named in the statute we fear that the training and technical assistance
needs of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs will be overlooked.
Quality Standards
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs and the children and
families they serve have unique needs that must be accommodated in the
development and enforcement of quality standards and we would like to
see language included in the Senate bill to ensure that the rural and
short-term nature of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs are taken
into account when developing standards.
Staff Qualifications and Development
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs face unique challenges in
hiring and retaining staff. In contrast to the Early Head Start year
with 260 days, and the Regional Head Start typical year with 160 days,
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs operate anywhere from 20 days
(four weeks) to 189 days (nine months). Because these programs operate
in some of the most rural areas in the nation, it is difficult to find
staff that meet minimum qualifications, especially for the short-term
programs. Programs spend considerable funds training staff and once
staff meet the qualifications, they often leave for longer term, more
stable employment. This results in staff retention issues and a low
percentage of staff who meet current minimum qualifications.
Rural programs are forced to recruit from a limited pool of
applicants including program parents especially where programs require
bilingual staff. In addition, many staff and parents are monolingual
Spanish speaking and must therefore learn English prior to being
eligible to participate in local associate degree programs.
It is critical that Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs have
adequate access to technical assistance and training funds to support
their ongoing teacher training and support needs. We have advocated
that in allocating technical assistance and training resources some
priority consideration be given to areas where there is a shortage of
qualified personnel. Such a priority would be of great help to Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start programs as well as other rural or short term
programs facing similar challenges in securing and maintaining training
staff.
ENSURE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR MIGRANT AND SEASONAL HEAD START PROGRAMS
Ensuring that a federal branch for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
is maintained is critical but without additional funds directed to our
programs we still face the realty that only 19% of the children
eligible for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start are being served.
The last Head Start reauthorization bill, the Coats Human Services
Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-285), established eligibility for children
of seasonal farmworkers and instructed the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to study the need and demand for Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start programs. The HHS study, The Descriptive Study of
Seasonal Farmworker Families, was released in September 2001, and
documents that only 31,400 out of 161,400 (19%) of eligible migrant and
seasonal children are served through existing Migrant and regional Head
Start Programs. By comparison, Regional Head Start programs serve
approximately 60% of their eligible population.
We urge you to build on the progress made in the last
reauthorization bill by making sure that more eligible children have
access to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs. We can now point to
an HHS study that documents the unmet need and we ask that the statute
direct additional funds to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs to
address the documented need.
Over the last eight years, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs
have consistently received less than 4% of the Head Start annual
appropriation.
The Migrant and Seasonal Programs are funded, along with Indian
Head Start, children with disabilities, technical assistance, program
review, research and demonstrations, out of a 13% statutory set aside
from the annual Head Start appropriation.
Based on current program funding it would cost an additional
$750,000,000 to achieve parity between the Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start and the Regional Head Start. Such an increase would bring current
funding from $250,000,000 to over $1,000,000,000 and enable Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start to serve 60% of the eligible population.
While completely closing this funding gap between Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start and Regional Head Start may be unrealistic in the
near future, we urge you to consider making the following statutory
changes designed to increase funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start programs and move them towards parity with regional Head Start
programs.
WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING STEPS:
First, we recommend that language be included in the statute to
ensure that Migrant and Seasonal Head Start receive at least 5% of the
appropriated funds. The funding of our programs is currently at the
discretion of HHS and programs have never received more that 4% of the
funds appropriated annually.
Secondly, we recommend that language be included in the statute to
ensure that Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs can access Early
Head Start funding: While Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs
serve both infants and toddlers the programs do not have access to the
Early Head Start Funds that are available to Regional Head Start
Programs. Early Head Start Funds are only available to full year
program and leaves Migrant and Seasonal Programs to provide full day
services to both infants and toddlers without the benefit of these
extra program funds or technical assistance funds.
I appreciate this opportunity to share the concerns of the National
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association and I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or your staff might have related to our
programs or our policy recommendations. Thank you.
Statement of the Navajo Nation
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Head Start program
is of critical importance to the health and welfare of Navajo children.
Head Start enables the Navajo Nation to invest in its most valuable
resource, the children of the Navajo Nation. On behalf of the Navajo
people, I thank you for this opportunity to present our concerns and
recommendations regarding proposals before Congress to change the Head
Start program.
BACKGROUND
The Navajo Reservation is geographically as large as Rhode Island,
Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland combined. The
unemployment rate on the Navajo Nation currently ranges from 36% to
50%. Our per capita income is $6,123 which is less than one third of
its state neighbors, Arizona and New Mexico. The Navajo Nation
Department of Head Start (NNDOHS) serves nearly 6,500 children who
otherwise would not receive comprehensive services. Navajo children
alone represent one third of all Native American children who receive
Head Start services throughout the United States.
The Navajo Nation Department of Head Start (NNDOHS) is one of the
largest Head Start organizations operating in the United States today.
In fact, they are one of only ten super grantees recognized by the
Department of Health and Human Services. The 5 Head Start Agency
offices of the Navajo Nation must serve a growing population whose
birth rate is 21.7 per 1,000 compared to the U.S. at 14.8 per 1,000.
Since its inception in 1965, NNDOHS has taken on new initiatives to
provide comprehensive health, educational, nutritional, socialization
and related cultural services to promote school readiness. NNDOHS
provides medical, dental screenings and nutritional meals to students.
Parenting classes and counseling services are also offered to Head
Start families on the Navajo Nation with a special component for career
development to help Navajo parents provide better lives for their
children.
NNDOHS is nationally distinguished as the only Head Start that
offers programs to preserve culture and language. Navajo Nation
believes that Navajo Language and culture are an integral part of the
whole child. Language and culture is a way of life that defines one's
self-identity and self-esteem. It is the hope of the NNDOHS to aid in
the preservation of the Navajo language and culture.
ISSUE
The Navajo Nation has two primary concerns related to changes
reflecting President Bush's proposal to Head Start programs. The first
is moving existing Head Start programs from the Department of Health
and Human Service to the Department of Education. The second point of
contention regards the delegation of Navajo Head Start authority to
States under the proposed demonstration project. The following is a
brief outline of these concerns:
1. The Navajo Nation believes transferring responsibility and by
extension, services, from HHS to the Department of Education would
alter how services are currently provided to Navajo children. Due to
the remoteness and unmet transportation needs of several communities,
many children are unable to reach hospitals for regular check ups and
other child health care needs. In turn, Navajo head start centers
become providers of this service. Considering the high unemployment and
poverty rates of the Navajo Nation, it is safe to say that without Head
Start many children would go to school hungry. In some instances, the
meals children receive through the head start program are the only
reliable means of getting a good breakfast and lunch. The transfer does
not guarantee that these essential program components such as
comprehensive services, career development of community residents, and
extended day services meeting the needs of working parents will be
sustained.
2. The Navajo Nation believes the proposed state demonstration
project would create uncertainty and chaos for communities like the
Navajo Nation that reside in more than one state. The Navajo Nation is
located within Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. If any of these states
were to become a demonstration site, the Navajo Nation would be thrust
into a gulf of uncertainty as to how to reconcile state and federal
Head Start regimes.
Furthermore, such a state demonstration project would undermine the
government to government relationship between tribes and the United
States government, forcing the Navajo Nation to seek Head Start funding
from a state that may very well view tribal interests as threatening
there own. Our experience has been that when federal dollars that are
intended for tribes are passed through states the money often does not
make it to the reservation. Federal transit funding is a case in point.
States are supposed to pass through a proportionate amount of their
federal transit funds to tribes located within a state. However, states
typically do not permit this pass through.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ensure that Head Start remains within the Department of Health and
Human Services and not be moved to the Department of Education to
ensure that children continue to receive comprehensive services with
strong parental involvement.
Exempt the American Indian Alaskan Native Program Branch from State
demonstration projects to protect the government-to-government
relationship as well as the delivery of federal funding to tribal
communities.
CONCLUSION
On behalf of the Navajo people, I urge this Committee to consider
how changing the Head Start program will effect your most vulnerable
and neglected constituents-the Native American people.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]