A New Proposal: Head Start For All?

When Head Start was founded in 1965, it was hailed as a revolutionary way to help Americas poorest children prepare for school. The idea, advocates said, was to create that proverbial level playing field. Today, the president of the countrys second-largest teachers union announced a new path to that mythical leveled field, declaring that all children — middle class, working class and poor — should be eligible to attend quality pre-school programs like Head Start.

At the biannual convention of the American Federation of Teachers, president Sandra Feldman called for the universal enrollment in pre-school of every child aged three or older — regardless of whether their parents are able to pay for the classes. The AFT plan would charge parents on a sliding scale, asking wealthier parents to spend a bit more in order to finance part of another, needier childs tuition. Feldman puts the estimated tab of such a program at $41 billion, the bulk of which would continue to be bankrolled by state and federal funds.

Various aspects of Head Start have always sparked debate — even among its ostensible supporters. While some, including President Bush, advocate tougher standards for the program, others are concerned that current enrollment guidelines effectively cut out children of the working poor, who cannot afford private preschool, but are too well-off to meet Head Starts federal poverty guidelines. The AFT pre-school plan would address both those concerns by enforcing vigorous standards for teachers and eliminating financial requirements for enrollees.

Not everyone, of course, is in favor of Head Start. In an effort to delineate the debate between program supporters and detractors, TIME.com spoke with representatives of organizations with very different viewpoints. First, Professor Fran Stott, the Vice President and Dean of Academic Programs at the Erikson Institute, a graduate school in childhood development that was founded in 1966 to educate Head Start teachers. On the other side of the issue is Krista Kafer, an Education Policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C., a non-profit research institute that has historically taken a very skeptical view of Head Start programs.

In Favor of Head Start

TIME.com: Is Sandra Feldmans proposal a good idea?

Fran Stott: I totally endorse the major purpose of her message. I also believe that all evidence indicates that yes, universal pre-school is a very good idea. I think it also a very good idea because it is the best way to address the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children. Its also important to note that according to research, while early childhood education makes a major difference in childrens later successes, there are other aspects of early learning — like emotional and social development — that can also be addressed by well-rounded, quality pre-school programs.

There are so many important things that can and should happen in those early years — the foundation for literacy, the ability to attend to learning tasks and control emotions, the ability to get along with others — so many foundations for later education. Money can buy so many of the experiences kids need to succeed in school — summer camp, music lessons, computers in the home — all things advantaged kids have almost automatically. Its all part of a larger structure and path to success. These are things disadvantaged kids simply dont have and I believe universal preschool is a way of helping them get those things.

The AFT proposal would make Head Start a sort of skeleton for a universal pre-school program. Do you agree with that proposal?

Head start is a very good starting point for a universal pre-school program. Since its inception, Head Start has aspired to do a couple of things that I think are very important. It has aspired to get parents involved, in one way or another, in their childrens education. I also think its wonderful because the program takes a developmental approach to early childhood education — rather than taking an elementary school program and watering it down.

Another aspect of what Feldman said that we here certainly agree with is that the teachers in Head Start need to have the same vigorous education and pay levels as teachers at other levels.

The Opposing View

TIME.com: What do you think of Sandra Feldman's proposal to universalize early childhood education through programs like Head Start?

Krista Kafer: There's some weaknesses in the program that need to be addressed before any such expansion, and more research needs to be done. What existing research shows is a fade-out effect — whatever gains are made early on fade by the second grade. There are some programs, primarily those who have those pre-reading skills that have been very successful. Others are basically just expensive daycare.

Do you think this proposal will come to anything?

I hope not. Given the failure of Head Start, why would anyone else want to put their kids in? Head Start was started in the 60's as part of the War on Poverty. Its focus was helping underprivileged kids gain the same skills and understanding that their middle class peers had entering school. If these children are learning these things at home they should continue; it's much more desirable. Research here at Heritage has shown that family interaction is much more desirable than any other kind. Anything that would take kids out of a positive home is just not good policy. They need to fix Head Start for who it's intended for: Underprivileged kids.

It's an idea that I'm surprised they even came up with.

What would make the program better?

The president has proposed putting Head Start into the Department of Education and adding some academic skills to the program; primarily pre-reading skills. It would require teachers to encourage more developmentally appropriate skills. In putting in pre-reading skills we get kids ready to go to school and hopefully, the gains would be sustained. As long as it's Play-Dough and growing plants and doing cute things, significant progress won't be made. A component of the program should be experiential learning, but they need to have exercises that will enable children to do better, to supply them with things they would learn in the home — pre-reading, colors and shapes.

One of the things to keep in mind is that many kinds from underprivileged homes have no access to alphabetic materials and books. One thing that Head Start should be able to do is make up for some of the environment that child in poor homes don't have. Letters, numbers, reading to children and having them follow along — these are things regularly taught to child in middle and upper-class homes, but routinely deprived in underprivileged homes. We need to make sure we have a program that works — sustained academic achievement so children can catch up with their middle class peers and be able to do well in their education.