On Thursday, August 6, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Head Start (OHS) announced a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the Head Start Act. The proposed rules would remove most of the law’s Program Performance Standards regulations (Section 1301), add a few new ones, and lean on bare statutory requirements to guide the nation’s 1,526 Head Start grantees over a five-year implementation timeline for the new regulations.
The rules date back to the ‘70s when the agency first published the first set of standards, and they’ve been developing ever since, so there are a lot of them: about 1,400 provisions (as of now). This effort seeks to knock back regulatory overgrowth, and much of it isn’t that controversial. But there are plenty of sections that seem to miss the mark.
So, what do you need to know? First, the law isn’t going away. The proposed rules do not (and cannot) alter Head Start statutory requirements, nor alleviate state and local requirements. Whatever calls were out there to end the program are not happening.
But there are plenty of changes. Here are a few to illustrate the range of controversy and expected commentary we may see during the comment period, starting with a low drama matter and ratcheting up.
Low drama. The proposed regulations will remove requirements that duplicate statute. For example, the law (Section 642) requires a Head Start center to have a governing board and a policy council. The regulations (Section 1301.3) detailed how it all worked by restating the statute and cross referencing other regulations related to programs goals, continuous improvement, performance standards, and more. The proposed rules would remove the directive detail and fall back to the statute, which is fairly detailed.
Low- to mid drama. The proposed changes to the CLASS assessment will likely drive plenty of comments. Notably, the proposed rules eliminate the requirement to use the CLASS: Pre-K instrument as the sole measure of classroom quality in the Designation Renewal System (DRS). Grantees still must assess and report on classroom quality, as it’s a statutory requirement. But grantees can now use any valid, reliable, research-based observational instrument, not just CLASS: Pre-K. Notwithstanding, the agency acknowledges in the proposed rules that it “anticipates continuing to use CLASS: Pre-K as the observational tool to assess classroom quality for the foreseeable future.”
The comments on this will be interesting because some very successful early learning programs—Louisiana and Virginia come to mind—are built on the consistency and stability of CLASS assessments and related interventions. Will the removal undermine the progress? I am sure there will be strong commentary on that.
Mid drama. Also on the topic of program quality, the proposal removes the federal requirement that Head Start programs participate in their state Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). Programs may still choose to participate, but it is no longer mandated. According to HHS, the requirement was unnecessary because the evidence doesn’t clearly link QRIS participation to child developmental outcomes—but those who have been building these programs for at-risk children and families are sure to push back. The work of elevating the quality of programming for low-income and high-need children and communities has been a methodical slog over decades, and this step back is unlikely to be cheered in any state, whether that’s the national leader Alabama STARS (started in 2014) or Connecticut’s relatively new program Elevate (kicked off in 2022). Expect veteran officials in the field to push back on this one.
Mid- to high drama. Some of the rules would advance the administration’s priorities. Notably, programs would be required to conduct all education in English (with an exception for Tribal programs), but that won’t come cheap or easy. HHS estimates a one-time cost of $46M to comply with the English-only instruction requirement (replacing curriculum and instruction materials and books), and that’s probably on the low end! The proposed rule would allow programs to request a waiver to phase this requirement in over multiple years. Count on these cash-strapped grantees to take advantage of that.
The new documentation requirement will also add fuel to already fiery immigration debates. This administration has been clear that public dollars should benefit only documented citizens (you can read their interpretation of the public benefit rule here). These proposed rules clarify that eligible families must verify eligibility with tax forms, pay stubs, or official statements. Self-attestation, however, will no longer be an acceptable way to demonstrate income eligibility. While using federal funds only for citizens isn’t controversial, it will draw commentary from those serving rural, migrant, and agricultural communities, where day-to-day community assistance isn’t so black and white.
High drama. Other proposed eliminations will get grilled because they gloss over serious matters. For example, in the early 2000s, many states didn’t require criminal background checks, and when children became victims of sexual crimes (and worse), the need for federal requirements and cross-state coordination on safety matters became clear. The tragedies were completely avoidable. Congress investigated, and HHS acted accordingly. The rules were put in place exactly because states failed to protect children. Eliminating the requirements in order say that the agency fit Section 1301 on a note card misses the point. [The Hechinger Report]
These are only a few of the issues that will animate the comments over the 60-day open comment period. After that, HHS will review and respond to the comments and issue final regulations that will be implemented over a five-year period. We will continue to monitor and report out as the process develops.
