During the past 12 years, we have suffered from divided government. Those of us, in the Congress and outside, who wanted to improve the lot of children fought for a variety of programs. Some never reached the president's desk because of Senate filibusters. Others were passed by the Congress only to be vetoed by the president. There were a few exceptions. One was Head Start.
Here was a program acknowledged by all to be good. Even during the years of budget cuts and vetoes, Head Start was expanded. Many of us saw its shortcomings, but we were reluctant to open up the issue, to raise doubts. We were afraid that if we offered suggestions for improving Head Start, the end result would be no improvements and the program might suffer cuts instead of being expanded. But now, we're in a different period. Because we have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, we can, for the first time in years, talk openly about shortcomings and needed improvements without fearing that such a discussion will be used to sabotage the very programs we want to improve.
Throughout these years, most of us called for fully funding Head Start--that is, providing Head Start for every youngster who qualified. At present, only 3 out of every I0 children who qualify are actually served. But is fully funding the present program the best thing we can do for these youngsters, their families and their communities?
First, it needs to be said that Head Start has been one of the most successful federal programs. As with all large programs, there is a range of quality. Some individual Head Start programs are outstanding, many are good, but a large number are poor. One of the major reasons for poor quality is the very low salaries paid to staff As the program has expanded, it has become much harder to find the additional tens of thousands of adults willing to work for very low pay. More programs are staffed with inexperienced employees. Turnover is very high, and the infrastructure for training staff is practically nonexistent. A massive expansion will certainly be accompanied by massive deterioration. This, in turn, will be followed by exposes and by withdrawal of public support.
Is this an argument for doing nothing? Does this mean that President Clinton need not honor his pledges about Head Start? Of course not. But instead of mechanically pouring money into the existing program, we need to do some hard thinking about the right way to spend the money. These are some of the issues that need to be considered:
-- Prior to rapid expansion, we need provisions for adequate training for Head Start staff and for a level of funding that will enable Head Start programs to retain their staffs.
-- The Head Start program needs to be redesigned to take care of today's problems. The number of hours and days each child attends are not enough to provide the full benefits of the program. Also, programs do not care for children enough hours and days to make it possible for parents to work. If we are serious about ending welfare as we know it within two years, we need a program for young children that cares for them all day and all year round.
-- The current program is segregated by class. Only the very poor qualify. A better program would offer all-day and all-year Head Start to all children. There need be no cost to taxpayers since parents who can afford to would pay fees to cover the full cost of their participation. For many working parents, this would be economically more reasonable than the private arrangements they make now. It would be more educationally beneficial to the children as well.
-- Most research shows that kids in Head Start do well but that gains they make in the program eventually disappear. Why not devote resources to starting earlier with many of these children? Why not devote resources to following kids who have benefited from Head Start into elementary school with high quality programs designed to maintain the edge they have gotten? More and more schools are thinking about keeping kids with the same teacher for two or three years. Head Start kids also need this continuity and this chance to develop a warm, long-term relationship with the person who is looking after them.
Instead, we have a program where a child might have three or four babysitters to fill in the time after school and on holidays--and a new Head Start teacher every couple of months. Head Start has been great, but it can be greater. Right now, we have a chance to stop and think about how to make Head Start better able to give kids what they need. We should seize it.