Q&A with Elliot Regenstein About Head Start’s Next Chapter

When Head Start was launched in the 1960s, an important component of the program was that its funding flows directly from the federal government to local and regional providers. Can you talk a bit about why the program was established in that specific manner and the advantages of that funding structure?

One of the major goals of the program has always been to serve the kids who need it most – and in the 1960s, there were a number of states who very clearly would not have used the money to serve those children. Race was obviously a huge part of that conversation. Over time one advantage of that approach was that the program was able to maintain its consistent focus on the populations it was trying to serve, and also continually evolve through actions of Congress and the executive branch. 

In August 2026, the Trump administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that, if allowed to take effect, would make fundamental changes to Head Start. We’ve written previously about the details of these proposed changes so I won’t ask you to explain them all. But could you explain why these proposed changes are so important and also why there’s currently such uncertainty about when the new regulations might take effect?

The Administration has articulated two different versions of a theory of action for these changes, and at this point it’s not clear which version we’re going to get. The first version is that the rules are holding Head Start providers back, and that by freeing providers from constraints the Administration will allow providers to reach their full potential. If budgets are held constant, providers can continue to deliver the services they think are essential, with some freedom at the margins to experiment with changes that might help children and families. That to me is a plausible theory even if you disagree with many of the particulars of the proposed rules change, as I do. 

But that theory presumes that per-child funding is held relatively constant, and the proposal itself strongly suggests that per-child funding will be cut substantially. The proposal includes pages of budget tables based on a reduction in per-child funding, and administration officials have talked about that publicly in describing the proposal. So the second version of the theory of action is that getting rid of the rules allows the administration to move the floor when it comes to per-child funding, and that the real impact will be to spread the same amount of money much more thinly. I know I am far from alone in thinking that this approach would hurt outcomes for kids, period.

At this point, though, we’ve gotten mixed signals about which version we’re actually going to get. The Administration hasn’t articulated a clear plan for rolling out funding changes to grantees, so there’s uncertainty as to when providers will feel the budgetary impact. Moreover, if the rules are adopted as proposed there will surely be lawsuits, and those might tie up implementation in some or all of the country for months or years. So even if the rules are adopted largely as proposed there’s a great deal we don’t know about what the short-term impact will look like.

The proposed Head Start rule received more than 40,000 public comments, many strongly opposing the changes. Although you’re critical of many of the proposals, you also suggest that the rule could prompt a more intentional effort to integrate Head Start into state early learning systems. What would that integration look like for a program that has historically operated with a limited role for state governments?

First, in addition to the proposed changes that Head Start advocates overwhelmingly disagree with, there’s a real missed opportunity here. In the 1960s state and local pre-K programs were nothing like they are today, nor was subsidized child care, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was still years away. So the landscape looked a lot different than it does now. Some of the barriers between Head Start and states are statutory, but it seems like there are a lot of areas – unified enrollment, data integration, workforce development, improvement supports, and more – where a more cohesive relationship between Head Start and states could benefit both Head Start and state systems. 

The devil’s in the details, of course, and it would take real work to craft a proposal that meets the needs of both the Head Start community and states of varying capacity. This Administration hasn’t even attempted to facilitate that conversation and doesn’t appear poised to. But that’s a conversation I’d argue we can and should have. 

How might better integration between Head Start and state early learning systems change the experience of families with young children? What difference might it make in how they access and navigate early childhood services?  

I like that you ask about enrollment and navigation, because that’s something a lot of states have been focused on. Families with young children – particularly low-income families with young children – don’t have the time to sort out all the potential options for their child, and then go through burdensome processes of applying for different services. What families really want is timely information about what services they can actually enroll in, not just what’s operating in their community; just as importantly, they want that enrollment process to be as easy as possible. So states are working to make it easier for those families, using a combination of statewide data infrastructure and local navigational support. South Carolina has been one of the most ambitious states in this area, but there are plenty of others working on it. If Head Start’s governing regulations acknowledged those efforts and made changes to make it easier for Head Start providers to participate, that would benefit both families and providers.

Given the uncertainty around the rule’s timing and ultimate fate, what practical steps can state policymakers take now to strengthen their early learning systems without making decisions based on changes that may never take effect? 

One of the changes some states have tried to make is to think more holistically about their early childhood systems, with the state role evolving from “we administer programs and ensure compliance” to “we support a complex ecosystem with the goal of maximizing benefits for children and families.” That’s a process that’s well underway in some states and not even begun in others. Changes to Head Start will have ripple effects on providers of all sorts of services, not just Head Start; in states taking an ecosystem approach, it will be important to be on alert to see what’s actually playing out, and whether there are any state-level policy adjustments needed to continue providing consistent services. States that are focused on administering a series of funding streams will experience this somewhat differently, but will still need to keep an eye on what impacts the changes are having as they unfold. 

Given the uncertainty there may be only so much states can do to get ahead of that, but at the very least they can be talking to their provider community – including Head Start providers and others – to understand how any changes are likely to be experienced, and to think about what might come next. At this point it’s not feasible to have a detailed plan for every possible contingency, but it is possible to engage key constituencies and be ready to act should the need arise. 

Looking beyond the current rulemaking, what would your vision be for Head Start’s future? How can states and the federal government work together to strengthen the program while preserving what has made it distinctive?

In many ways the vision I discuss in the paper is about process as much as outcome. There have been tremendous leaders on early childhood in states across a wide political spectrum. If some of those state leaders worked with the Head Start community and national experts to craft an affirmative vision for how Head Start really ought to work in partnership with states, it would be a powerful statement to the next administration and Congress. There are a host of thorny issues to work out, but a lot of opportunity. 

I think many state leaders would love to be stronger partners with Head Start and have Head Start providers as true partners in building an early childhood system. In the Head Start community views vary widely, but there are a lot of providers genuinely interested in what a new framework might look like. If that framework creates opportunity for willing providers to partner with states in new ways – and creates a path for providers who’d rather be later adopters – that could open up a new era in which state systems and Head Start can partner on core functions in ways that they never have before.

As I said, this administration isn’t going to convene that conversation, but others can – and ideally at least some of this work will be done in the next two years, so that a new administration can be handed a thoughtful proposal. I feel like there are a lot of people in the early childhood community who believe deeply in the value of Head Start, understand the importance of Head Start continuing to evolve, and are skeptical that we will actually ever have the conversations we need to about what Head Start’s next chapter might look like. I understand that skepticism, but I don’t share it. I’d like to see the future of Head Start defined in a comprehensive way by bipartisan champions of early childhood, not by any single administration or proposal.