Topeka Capital-Journal, The: HEAD START

A new study from Yale points out the dangers in Bush's plan to turn the Head Start program over to the states.

No fix needed

In his budget, President Bush wants to turn the highly successful Head Start program over to the states. Instead of the federal dollars going directly to Head Start programs, the states would get grants to form their own programs.

It's akin to trying to fix a program that isn't broken. And a new study by Yale University shows it very likely would break the program, based on the states' lackluster record in preschool education.

The study, authored by researchers Walter S. Gilliam and Carol H. Ripple, found that while some states have strong preschool programs, many states don't come close to measuring up to Head Start.

"We found that the quality of state-funded preschool programs varies so much that turning Head Start over to the states would be like playing Russian roulette with the futures of America's children," Gilliam said.

"Head Start must stay consistently strong, well-monitored and focused on all of the comprehensive needs of the children and families it serves. Currently, most states do not have the infrastructure necessary to implement, maintain and evaluate the success of a large, comprehensive child and family program such as Head Start.

"While some states might do well, most states would likely do poorly, and several states would be disastrous."

Analyzing how states currently manage federal dollars for preschool, the study disproved several assumptions that proponents of the Bush plan have asserted.

For starters, they say the states have a desire to address children's development and school-readiness needs, but the reality is that until federal funds were available, only 10 states provided preschool or child care services. And several states still don't today, even with the availability of federal dollars.

The claim that states will maintain Head Start standards of quality and comprehensiveness is countered by the fact that only three states mandate the level of service provided by Head Start, which deals with social and physical development as well as educational preparation.

State-funded programs also are weak in supporting parents, increasing family stability and economic self-sufficiency and facilitating parental involvement in their children's education. Head Start does all of that.

The study also found little evidence that states will design and implement programs that most closely meet the unique needs of their children and families. Instead, it said there was no relation between the level of children's needs and the quality, comprehensiveness or inclusiveness of the program.

Head Start, though administered federally, is structured so that its centers run locally. In this way, Head Start maintains national standards while tailoring its programs to identify and meet individual child and community needs, the report said.

Although government after government studies have shown that Head Start students are ready to learn when they start school, proponents of change say the state programs would be more effective at enhancing children's school readiness. However, less than one-third of state- funded preschool programs have been evaluated for their effectiveness. Of those that have, the findings are mixed and generally no better than those of Head Start. Further, they have been shown to be weak in promoting parental involvement and child health, two major focuses and strengths of Head Start.

To the argument that states will combine funding sources to implement full- and extended-day programs that benefit working families, the study worries that states that have invested little in promoting comprehensive school readiness in the past could use the money to provide nothing more than half-day child care for the poor, with little attention to educational needs of the children.

Many Topekans involved in Head Start and in children's issues have expressed similar concerns about the changes Bush wants to make in Head Start. They know they have a good program that works. Why change it?