Early childhood education is critical, particularly for low-income families. My Archbridge Institute colleague and Nobel Prize winner James Heckman has written extensively on this topic.
This is why the Trump administration’s proposed reforms to Head Start are so badly needed. In the real world, resources are not unlimited. We simply can’t afford to continue devoting increasing amounts of taxpayer funding to every program that we like. The national debt is rapidly approaching $40 trillion.
Recommended Stories
So, how do we address the challenge of improving access to early childhood education without utilizing additional scarce taxpayer resources?
Proponents on both sides of the aisle have embraced deregulation as a solution. The truth is that Head Start regulations are currently much more burdensome than what most states impose on childcare facilities.
In an Archbridge Institute report earlier last year, we ranked Head Start regulations against each state’s regulations. Consistently, we ranked Head Start regulations as more burdensome.
Instead of reducing the regulations that Head Start imposes on childcare providers with respect to staff education requirements and child-to-staff ratios, the proposed rules give each state the flexibility to set rules in line with current state regulations.
Parents and states will value this flexibility. It eliminates top-down rigidity and empowers individual states to choose what is the right fit.
Every state is different. A report from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation finds that spending per Head Start slot varies considerably from state to state.
By offering states the flexibility to consider different staff-to-child ratios and staff education requirements, taxpayer dollars will stretch further. Analysis conducted by the Administration for Children and Families estimates that 236,000 more students could obtain a Head Start slot with the proposed regulatory reforms without increasing cost. This improvement should be celebrated, not vilified.
Critics will argue that regulations are meant to keep children safe or to improve quality. But economic research suggests something different.
Published research finds that child-to-staff ratios have no measurable impact on accidents. Further, any education beyond high school is sufficient to lead to better child safety. It is not clear that more general education, such as a bachelor’s degree or a child development associate credential, is improving child safety.
Further, we have good evidence that stringent regulation reduces the number of childcare providers and is associated with higher costs.
Critics might also point to staffing shortages. But current regulations do not help the situation. With fixed staffing mandates and funding, it is no wonder that there is no room to change staff salaries. Research confirms this: it is staff who are forced to shoulder a significant burden of the inefficiencies and costs of additional regulation.
Childcare staff will appreciate that the new rule also prevents funding from supporting administrative bloat instead of the staff who are most important to the success of Head Start.
And stringent educational requirements are also no help. Why invest in higher education credentials if there is no return on investment?
Training that clearly aligns with safety, such as CPR and sleep training, makes perfect sense and clearly aligns with quality. Forcing workers to obtain more general education does not.
OPINION: WASHINGTON IS FAILING HEAD START. WE’RE EMPOWERING PARENTS INSTEAD
And states are empowered to make the decisions that make the most sense. No top-down, one-size-fits-all bureaucracy.
Parents and providers have the best vantage point to know what is best for their children. The proposed reform to Head Start regulations is a step in the right direction toward removing federal control and outdated expert guidance and modernizing it for the fiscal realities of the 21st century.
Edward Timmons is the vice president of policy at the Archbridge Institute.
