Dueling Op-Eds: Head Start in the Stimulus

Yesterday’s New York Times featured an op-ed by Douglas J. Besharov and Douglas M. Call–from now on I’ll call them Doug²–opposing Head Start funding in the House and Senate stimulus bills. Doug² argue that Head Start shouldn’t be in the stimulus because the program is ineffective, so increasing Head Start funding would be an example of “spending vastly more on domestic programs without necessarily improving the way they operate.”

But there are two problems with that argument. For starters, Head Start isn’t really as ineffective as Doug² claim. Numerous studies, including the Head Start FACES study, show that Head Start children make learning gains. Other research has shown that Head Start learning gains tend to “fade-out” as children proceed into elementary school—but research by Susanna Loeb and Valerie Lee, and by Janet Currie and Duncan Thomas, shows that a major cause of that fade-out is that Head Start students are more likely to go on to poor quality public schools than their control peers. The problem, then, isn’t that Head Start is ineffective. Head Start improves learning for disadvantaged kids, but a single year of preschool just can’t be enough to overcome the combined disadvantages of family poverty and poor quality public elementary schooling. Head Start must be coupled with reform efforts that improve the quality of public schools serving poor children.

That said, there is variability in Head Start quality, and many providers aren’t as good as they should be. When Congress reauthorized Head Start in 2007, they took a number of specific steps to improve Head Start quality, such as raising teacher education requirements and requiring states to establish early education advisory councils to better coordinate Head Start, pre-k, child care, and public school programs. However, these reforms cost money, and subsequent appropriations haven’t provided increased funding to pay for them–even though Head Start funding has stagnated for more than five years. This undermines the reforms.

For example, the reauthorization requires states to establish state advisory councils for early learning. But that requirement is conditional upon appropriation of increased funding to allow states to pay for the councils. Since funding hasn’t gone up, many states haven’t created the councils. Similarly, to raise Head Start teacher salary levels, providers have to pay them more–but they aren’t getting any more money from the feds to do so.

The increased funding levels that the House stimulus bill would provide—$1 billion for Head Start and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start (which serves 0—3-year-olds and pregnant women)—would enable states and providers to implement quality improvements in the 2007 reauthorization. Doug² may claim to be concerned about Head Start quality, but by arguing against increased Head Start funding, they’re actually arguing against necessary steps to address the very quality concerns they raise!

David Kirp, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, offers an alternative perspective, explaining why increased Head Start spending is both good stimulus and a good long-term investment in our children’s future. Well worth reading.