[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING HEAD START
FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 28, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-396 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Kenny Marchant, Texas
Linda T. Sanchez, California Tom Price, Georgia
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
David Loebsack, Iowa Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky York
Phil Hare, Illinois Rob Bishop, Utah
Yvette D. Clarke, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Susan A. Davis, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Loebsack, Iowa Ric Keller, Florida
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Phil Hare, Illinois Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Louisiana
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 28, 2007................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.................................................. 3
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 2
Sarbanes, Hon. John P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland, prepared statement of................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Elloie, Pearlie, Director, Office for Children, Youth and
Families, Total Community Action, Inc...................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Frede, Ellen, Ph.D., Codirector, National Institute for Early
Education Research, Rutgers University..................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Haxton, Barbara, Executive Director, the Ohio Head Start
Association................................................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
McKeever, Mac, Out-County Head Start Director................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Thompson, Ross A., Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, University
of California-Davis........................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Additional Material Submitted:
Sanchez, Yvette, Executive Director, the National Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start Association, prepared statement of..... 53
Sheketoff, Emily, Executive Director, the American Library
Association, letter........................................ 39
IMPROVING HEAD START FOR AMERICA'S CHILDREN
----------
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Scott, Kucinich, Davis of
California, Grijalva, Payne, Sarbanes, Sestak, Loebsack,
Hirono, Hare, Woolsey, Honojosa, Castle, Fortuno, Keller,
Boustany and Kuhl.
Staff Present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Molly Carter, Legal Intern/Education;
Alejandra Ceja, Senior Budget/Appropriations Analyst; Adrienne
Dunbar, Legislative Fellow/Education; Denise Forte, Director of
Education Policy; Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy
Advisor/Early Childhood; Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Jeff Hancuff,
Labor Staff Assistant; Ann-Frances Lambert, Administrative
Assistant to Director of Education Policy; Stephanie Moore,
General Counsel; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Robert
Borden, Minority General Counsel; Kathryn Bruns, Minority
Legislative Assistant; Jessica Gross, Minority Deputy Press
Secretary; Taylor Hansen, Minority Legislative Assistant;
Victor Klatt, Minority Staff Director; Stephanie Milburn,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Linda Stevens, Minority
Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairman Kildee. With a quorum being present, the hearing
of the subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, I am very excited to begin the Subcommittee's work on
the reauthorization of important education programs like Head Start.
Perhaps no other federal program is more important than putting
children on the right path for educational success. In recent years,
brain research has ratified the critical role of early childhood
education.
My own state of Maryland has been a leader in coordinating early
learning programs. Maryland's State Department of Education, for
example, has worked to improve school readiness through the Maryland
Model for School Readiness program. As a result, Maryland's students
have made tremendous strides in terms of the number of children who
enter school ready to learn as demonstrated by annual assessments.
Still, innovation without adequate resources has its limits.
Increasingly, Head Start providers are being forced to choose between
two bad options: diluting the quality of their program or refusing some
eligible children.
The impact of budget buts to the Head Start program is well
demonstrated at Baltimore's Catholic Charities, a Head Start grantee.
The Administrator of Head Start programs at Catholic Charities recently
said: ``We already made every kind of cut that we could find to make
leading into last year. Because of the (1 percent) federal funding
shortfall I could not find any further services or staff to cut without
reducing the quality of our program, which is something I refuse to do.
So I had no other choice but to not renew our contract of two Head
Start programs for next year. These two programs had been serving 459
children. We are working with the grantee now to ensure that these
children get some services elsewhere, but there is no guarantee that
services won't be interrupted. We may be closing the door of
opportunity on 459 children.''
Mr. Chairman, the administration's failure to direct adequate
resources to these critical programs is closing the door of opportunity
on these children and many others. I think you again for your
leadership in holding this hearing and look forward to working with you
to provide more and better opportunities for our nation's children.
______
Chairman Kildee. I now recognize myself for my opening
statement.
I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members,
especially those who are new to this committee. I have this
gavel back in my hand for the first time in 12 years, and I
hope I will use it as fairly as Governor Castle has used it. He
has always been fair and helpful.
I hope I can follow your example on that, Governor.
I welcome our witnesses and the public to this hearing on
improving Head Start for America's children.
Head Start has served our most vulnerable children and
families extremely well for 42 years, and, more recently, Early
Head Start has done the same for infants and toddlers and their
families. There are no more critical programs for our Nation's
children than these because there are no years more critical to
their development than the early ones.
Head Start and Early Head Start provide high-quality
comprehensive services to children and their families that help
children develop cognitively and non-cognitively to enable them
to succeed in school and in life. As Head Start providers have
known for years, and as we will hear today, early learning is a
product of both cognitive and non-cognitive and, indeed,
affective education. That is why Head Start and Early Head
Start are so successful, because they promote both and meet
high standards in doing so.
Providing infants and toddlers and young children with the
support and security they need helps their brains develop in
the early years and literally sets the foundation for later
development and learning. Just in the last few years, we have
learned that in the physical development of the brain, as our
circuits are formed, stimulation takes place, and that adds a
great deal to our body of knowledge and to our understanding of
the education of the very young.
We also will hear today about the importance of Head
Start's focus both on children and their families. Head Start
recognizes that healthy, well-adjusted children are far more
likely to come from healthy, well-adjusted families, and that
when families are under stress, that stress affects their
children's development.
One of the greatest stresses on families in our lifetimes
has been the ongoing impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and
their aftermath on the people of New Orleans and the Gulf
region. Today, we will learn about that tragedy, one program's
efforts to mitigate it on behalf of the families they serve,
and what still needs to be done to help those families. And we
will hear suggestions for improving the relationship between
the Federal Department of Health and Human Services and local
Head Start programs to make it a supportive relationship that
helps programs reach the high standards to which they aspire,
and also suggestions for increasing coordination between Head
Start and State-funded prekindergarten programs.
I am confident that today's hearing will provide us with
valuable information about how Head Start works and what we can
do to make it work even better. I know that one thing that will
not make Head Start work better would be to cut the investment
by $100 million as proposed in the President's budget. I do not
believe that the President's budget reflects the values of the
American people, and I will work with my colleagues in Congress
on both sides of the aisle to produce a budget that does.
I am hopeful that working with my Ranking Member Mr.
Castle, and our full committee Chairman and Ranking Member Mr.
Miller and Mr. McKeon, and with all members of the committee,
we can pass a reauthorization bill that will build on 42 years
of Head Start successes for the good of our Nation's children.
Chairman Kildee. It is now my pleasure to yield to the
Ranking Member, Governor Castle, for his opening statement.
Mr. Castle. Well, thank you very much, Dale. I cannot say
enough how pleased I am that you have taken over the helm of
this subcommittee again. I think that we have a real chance of
bipartisanship here, and I very much look forward to working
with you on all of the important issues in the jurisdiction of
our committee, and I am particularly pleased to be able to
discuss an issue that is of vital importance to our neediest
children, as you have well pointed out, and that is Head Start.
What better way to kick off your chairmanship than to start
with a good bipartisan issue.
As most people in this room know, this committee is set to
consider reauthorization of the Head Start program for the
third time. At one point I was optimistic that this renewal
would have been completed by now. Clearly I was wrong. Despite
that, I am going to remain optimistic that we get there with
this Congress.
Despite ups and downs in the process over the past several
years, there are several notions that have remained clear,
primarily that this program retains its focus on allowing
economically disadvantaged children access to the same
educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services
that were enjoyed by their more affluent peers. The goal of the
program was and remains today to provide children a solid
foundation that will prepare them for success in school and
later in life.
Over time, this program has provided the service to nearly
20 million low-income children and their families. Currently in
my home State of Delaware, Head Start programs serve over 1,500
children with almost 500 additional 4-year-olds receiving
assistance through State government funding. I am pleased that
we have a witness this morning who will discuss how Head Start
can coordinate with State pre-K and other early childhood
programs.
We also can all agree on the need for Head Start and its
successes. We must also recognize that Head Start can produce
even greater results for children. Students who attend Head
Start programs do start school more prepared than those with
similar programs that do not attend Head Start. However, Head
Start students continue to enter kindergarten well below
national norms in school readiness. We must remain focused on
how we can close this school readiness gap.
As I said, I believe strongly in the Head Start program.
Despite these stories, we have also heard many stories of
programs in which funds are being diverted away from this
purpose. I trust that, as we move forward, we will all identify
areas based on recommendations from the Government
Accountability Office of how we can prevent future incidents.
As I said at the outset, Head Start is an important and very
popular program. The importance of early childhood education
and services cannot be overstated.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about what
is happening on the ground, particularly since it is almost 2
years since this committee last reviewed the program in
anticipation of our job to reauthorize the program. Together I
believe we will get this done, and I believe, with Chairman
Kildee's leadership, we will get it done.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Let me apologize first. I have a lot of meetings this
morning. I have to take a meeting over here for a few minutes.
I will miss the beginning, but I will return shortly, and we
thank you all for being here.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor, very much.
I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel
of witnesses with us here this afternoon, and without
objection, all Members will have 7 calendar days to submit
additional materials or questions for the hearing record.
We have a distinguished panel. We have Dr. Ross Thompson, a
professor at the University of California at Davis. He served
on the Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood
Development at the National Academy of Sciences from 1998 to
2000. He also is a member of the Board of Directors of Zero to
Three. Dr. Thompson has received the American Psychological
Association's Boyd McCandless Award and the University of
Nebraska's Outstanding Research and Creative Activity Award.
I have known our second witness for many years. Mac
McKeever is the out-county Head Start director for the Genesee
County Community Action Resource Department and does a fine job
on behalf of many Head Start children and families in my
district. He is also a current member of the Board of Directors
and a Past President of the Michigan Head Start Association.
Barbara Haxton is the Executive Director of the Ohio Head
Start Association, and prior to that served as a Head Start
program director. She is an experienced trainer and consultant
for Head Start programs. She has worked over the years in
partnership with the Head Start Training and Technical
Assistance System.
Pearlie Elloie is the Director of the Office of Children,
Youth and Families of Total Community Action, Incorporated, of
New Orleans, which, prior to Hurricane Katrina, was the largest
Head Start program in Louisiana. Ms. Elloie has been honored
for her work by many community organizations, including the
YWCA, Tulane University School of Social Work, Dillard
University, and the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the National
Council for Jewish Women.
Dr. Ellen Frede is the Codirector of the National Institute
of Early Education Research at Rutgers University. Prior to
joining NIEER as codirector, Dr. Frede served as Assistant to
the Commissioner for Early Childhood Education at the New
Jersey Department of Education. Her office oversaw the
implementation of preschool programs in more than 150 school
districts serving 50,000 children and their families.
Welcome to all of our witnesses. We appreciate your
assisting us in our responsibilities.
For those who may not have testified before this committee
before, let me explain the lighting system and the 5-minute
rule. Everyone, including Members, is limited to 5 minutes of
presentation or questioning. The green light will be
illuminated when you begin to speak. When you see the yellow
light, it means that you have 1 minute remaining. When you see
the red light, it means your time has expired, and you need to
conclude your testimony. I will try to be gentle if you are in
midsentence or in midparagraph. Please be certain, as you
testify, to turn on and speak into the microphone in front of
you and turn it off when you are finished.
We will now hear from our first witness.
Before that, the rules of the committee adopted January
24th give the Chair discretion in recognizing Members for
questioning. It is my intention as Chair of this subcommittee
to recognize those Members present at the beginning of the
hearing in order of their seniority on this subcommittee.
Members arriving after the hearing begins will be recognized in
the order of appearance. I now call upon Dr. Ross Thompson for
his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROSS A. THOMPSON, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS
Dr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for this invitation to testify today.
I am particularly grateful for the interest of this
subcommittee in the science of early childhood development and
its relevance to the services provided by Early Head Start.
Research from a range of scientific disciplines now provides a
clear and convincing case for the critical importance of the
early years to later success in school and in life, so let me
tell you a little bit about what the science tells us.
First of all, the development of essential human
competencies is at its most accelerated pace in its early years
and is based on processes of brain development. Quite simply,
early development lays a foundation for all that follows, and
we see this most clearly in brain development when the nerve
cells that will last a lifetime develop in the early years, and
early experiences shape the connections between these neurons,
and the brain becomes wired in ways that will provide a
foundation for the development of more advanced capacities in
the years that follow.
Secondly, the growth of these basic, early competencies is
directly linked to the adult skills that are important to
success, and this is true in many, many areas of development
from language ability to communication skill to problem-solving
to capacities for focusing attention and exercising self-
control. In each case early developing abilities are a
foundation for the skills required for school readiness and
also for adult skills relating to workplace success.
Thirdly, early learning is based on both cognitive and
noncognitive skills. Although we focus on cognitive skills like
literacy and numeracy, the science tells us that noncognitive
skills, such as a child's curiosity, motivation to learn, self-
confidence, excitement about new discovery, and the capacities
to focus attention and to get along with others, are also
important predictors of early learning success. Importantly,
children in socioeconomic hardship are likely to be lagging in
both cognitive and noncognitive skills.
Fourth, early experiences have significant influences on
brain development and psychological growth. Much of the story
of early experience and brain development has focused on
encouraging parents to talk and read and sing to their young
children, and this is worthwhile, but the influence of early
experiences is a double-edged sword because, for many young
children, experiences of chronic stress, neglect or deprivation
are the major architects of their brain development. And you
will find in your packets in front of you a copy of a PET scan
that describes the brain imaging of both a normal child on the
left and a child who has experienced significant abuse on the
right, and you can see quite dramatically how significantly
different the brain has been architected by these different
experiences in the early years.
Fifth, as brain circuits consolidate over time, the brain's
plasticity actually decreases. Now, we use the term
``plasticity'' to describe the brain's continuing flexibility
and adaptability, and quite simply, this flexibility naturally
declines as brain architecture develops and consolidates. For
many young children, however, this means that the brain is
being built around early experiences of stress and trauma whose
effects can be more difficult to remediate over time. For this
reason, it is biologically wiser to prevent later difficulties
from emerging than to try to remediate problems that have
already developed.
Sixth, the quality of early relationships is the active
ingredient of healthy brain growth and psychological
development. Nurture and sensitive relationships provide the
best catalyst to the healthy growth of minds and brains, and,
in fact, supportive relationships can also help to buffer the
effects of stress that can be a significant impediment to early
learning.
Finally, early intervention programs can improve
developmental outcomes for children who are at risk of long-
term difficulty, especially if the programs are carefully
designed and thoughtfully implemented. There is now a
significant science of early intervention that shows in
carefully designed studies involving randomized controls the
long-term benefits to young children from their participation
in high-quality, early intervention programs.
Taken together, the science of early childhood development
suggests that investing in young children makes sense both
biologically and economically better than the Dow and the
NASDAQ, it seems, and this research has three further
implications for our thinking about Early Head Start.
The first is that the most effective program to support
early brain growth and psychological development should attend
to intellectual, social and emotional development and support
families and parenting beginning early in life as Head Start
seeks to do.
Secondly, the results of rigorous research document the
benefits of Early Head Start for enhancing children's progress
in school readiness, support a parent-child relationship and
improve family functioning as shown by a congressionally
mandated, randomized, controlled trial of Early Head Start.
Finally, in relation to the number of children at risk, the
science of early childhood development suggests that
significant expansion of Early Head Start is warranted.
Developmentally appropriate early childhood education looks a
lot different from developmentally appropriate education for
older children, and Early Head Start is a developmentally
appropriate program for young children.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to respond to
questions or to provide further information.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Dr. Thompson. We deeply
appreciate your testimony.
[The statement of Dr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ross A. Thompson, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology,
University of California, Davis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this
invitation to testify today.
My name is Ross A. Thompson, and I am a Professor of Psychology at
the University of California, Davis, where I study early social,
emotional, and personality development. I was a member of the National
Academy of Sciences Committee on Integrating the Science of Early
Childhood Development that produced the report, From Neurons to
Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, \1\ and I
have been actively involved in conducting original research on early
psychological development and examining the applications of
developmental science to public policy problems. I am grateful for the
interest of the Subcommittee in the science of early childhood
development and its relevance to the services provided by Early Head
Start.
As described in From Neurons to Neighborhoods, today we know much
more about the determinants of development throughout the life course,
and especially the importance of early experiences for life-long
competency. Contemporary research in human development has been
supplemented by work in developmental neuroscience whose conclusions
about brain development complement and expand the conclusions from
behavioral studies. As a consequence, research from a range of
scientific disciplines now provides a clear and convincing case for the
critical importance of the early years to later success in school and
in life. Remarkably, findings using a variety of methodologies and
approaches converge on a set of fundamental conclusions.\2\ The early
years are important. Early relationships matter. Healthy development
involves building strong minds, bodies, and persons. The early years
are a period of considerable opportunity for growth, and vulnerability
to harm. Developing competence involves cognitive and noncognitive
capabilities. It is much better to prevent developmental problems from
emerging than to try to remediate them later.
In these remarks, I will focus on some of the central conclusions
of the science of early childhood development, especially as it
concerns the influence of early experiences and their potentially
enduring effects. I will conclude with some recommendations concerning
the implications of the science for Early Head Start.
The early years matter
One of the central conclusions of developmental science is the
importance of development early in life. Quite simply, early growth
lays the foundation for all that follows. More precisely, the
development of essential human competencies is at its most accelerated
pace in the early years, and is based on processes of brain
development.
We see the importance of the early years most clearly in brain
development, which begins not at birth but prenatally, when the nerve
cells that will last a lifetime begin to be created.\3\ In a manner
that reflects the ongoing interaction of nature and nurture, brain
development is guided by a maturational timetable that incorporates
early experiences to create a brain that is efficient and well-suited
to the requirements of everyday life. How the brain becomes wired in
the early years provides a foundation for the development of more
advanced capacities in the years that follow.
The following points reflect some of the central conclusions of
developmental neuroscience.\4\
First, as noted earlier, brain growth begins very early.
Indeed, some of the most formative aspects of brain development occur
prenatally, when healthy brain growth is supported by good maternal
nutrition but can be undermined by maternal exposure to hazardous
substances such as alcohol (resulting in fetal alcohol syndrome),
environmental neurotoxins (such as in lead-based paint or mercury in
fish), controlled substances (such as cocaine), and other harms.\5\
This means that some children are born with brains that have already
been damaged, sometimes for life.
Second, brain development lasts a lifetime. Important
developmental processes, some associated with the growth of new
neurons, subtly shape the brain during adolescence and adulthood. The
brain is continuing to grow and change throughout life.
Third, the early years of childhood witness some of the
most significant growth in the brain's developing architecture. This
includes the ``blooming and pruning'' of neural connections in
different regions of the brain governing seeing and hearing, language,
and higher cognitive functions. These processes are substantially
completed, or well underway, within the first five years of life.
Taken together, developmental neuroscience confirms that the early
years establish the foundation on which later development is built,
much as a house is structurally firm or weak based on the foundation on
which it is built. Neural circuits that process basic information are
wired earlier than those that process more complex information.\6\ This
means that the development of more advanced capabilities is based on
the quality of early development. With respect to the brain, higher
capacities are more difficult to develop if lower-level capacities have
not developed appropriately. With respect to the mind, advanced skills
build on basic skills throughout development.
For this reason, the growth of these basic, early competencies is
directly linked to the emergence of school readiness and adult skills
that are important to success. In many, many areas of development, from
language ability and communication skills to problem-solving and
categorization to capacities for focusing attention and exercising
self-control, later skills are based on the foundational skills
established earlier in life.\7, 8\ For example, experiences during the
preschool years in letter recognition, letter-to-sound mappings,
rhyming, listening to stories, and access to literacy materials
predicts higher language and reading achievement in elementary
school.\9, 10\ Likewise, preschool exposure to basic concepts about
numbers, counting, comparing amounts, pattern recognition, and
categorizing enables children to more quickly absorb and understand
math concepts taught in school.\11\ In each case, early-developing
abilities are a foundation for the preliteracy, language, and number
skills required for school readiness, and for adult skills important to
workplace success as children build further on these skills in school.
Early learning is based on both cognitive and noncognitive skills
At a time when we are concerned with promoting children's school
readiness and preparing them for contributing to an increasingly
technological and information-rich society, it is natural that the
development of cognitive skills would be the focus of our concern with
early learning. But developmental science and developmental
neuroscience together tell us that early learning is based on both
cognitive and ``noncognitive skills''--such as a child's curiosity,
motivation to learn, self-confidence, excitement about new discovery,
and the capacities to focus attention, control behavior, and get along
with others.
This is true from very early. Infants learn through discovery in
their everyday explorations, shared by a sensitive, attentive
caregiver.\12\ Even the most casual observer of young children notices
how much early learning is driven by young children's curiosity and
enthusiasm for new understanding as they are ably assisted by parents
and teachers. As young children enter into group learning activities,
their capacities to pay attention, ask questions if they do not
understand, cooperate with peers and adults, control their emotions,
and approach learning opportunities self-confidently and with
enthusiasm are major contributors to their conceptual growth. These
qualities are also essential to school readiness and school success.
Developmental studies have found that classroom achievement in
kindergarten and the primary grades are associated with young
children's noncognitive skills such as motivation, self-regulation,
cooperation, behavioral self-control, and even the quality of their
peer relationships and emotional understanding.\13\
This is consistent also with scientific understanding of brain
development.\14\ Contrary to the natural tendency to divide the brain
into areas devoted to language, memory, reasoning, emotions, and the
like, the human brain is actually a highly complex, integrated organ.
There is not one brain area devoted to memory or language, but rather
several.\15\ Furthermore, brain regions have overlapping functions
related to thinking, feeling, or self-control. For example, areas of
the frontal cortex are involved in both attentional focusing and
emotional self-control.\16\ In short, the brain is not neatly divided
into cognitive and noncognitive areas. Rather, brain processes
influence each, and cognitive and noncognitive capacities are mutually
influential.
Early experiences are influential
Much of the story of early experience and brain development has
focused on encouraging parents to talk, read, and sing with their young
children. This is worthwhile, and it further illustrates the
integration of cognitive and noncognitive influences because of how
parent-child interaction captures the child's attention, provokes
preliteracy skills, and instills enthusiasm for learning. Over time,
experiences of this kind at home and outside the home can strengthen
brain areas related to early thinking and reasoning.
But the influence of early experience is a double-edged sword
because the experiences that shape brain architecture can be either
positive or negative, nurturant or stressful. Each is incorporated into
developing brain architecture. Unfortunately, for many young children
in the United States, experiences of chronic stress, neglect, or
deprivation are major architects of their brain development, and helps
to account for some of the difficulties they face. This is because of
how the brain responds neurobiologically to stress.\17\ Chronic
experiences of severe stress, especially early in life, can alter the
functioning of brain-based stress systems--potentially causing the
person to become hyperresponsive even to mild stressors--and can have
important effects on physical health, immunological capacity, and
psychological well-being for this reason. Chronic stress can also
influence cognitive functioning because, over time, the release of
stress hormones can damage brain structures (such as the hippocampus)
involved in learning and memory. These are some of the reasons that
early deprivation and stress can have enduring, detrimental
consequences for brain development, psychological growth, and physical
health. Children in socioeconomic hardship are especially vulnerable to
these stresses, and to the hazards they pose.
Early experiences are important for another reason. As brain
circuits consolidate over time, the brain's plasticity decreases. The
brain's ``plasticity'' is the basis for its flexibility and
adaptability, and this flexibility naturally declines as brain
architecture develops and consolidates. For many young children,
however, this means that the brain is being built around early
experiences of stress and trauma whose effects become more difficult to
remediate over time if they are not addressed early in life.
For this reason, it is biologically wiser to prevent later
difficulties from emerging than to later try to remediate problems that
have already developed.\18\ Early interventions benefit from the
greater plasticity in the immature brain, and the flexibility of the
brain to adapt positively to helpful interventions. By contrast, it is
often more difficult to try to remedy problems after they have already
developed, after brain development has consolidated around early
vulnerabilities. Indeed, the interventions that are necessary to
remediate later problems are often much more costly and prolonged than
are early preventive interventions. Furthermore, even when later
interventions are partially successful, individuals may experience
continuing vulnerability, especially when they are under stress. Early
prevention is, therefore, both biologically and economically a better
course than later remediation.
Early relationships are important
A large research literature documents how much early psychological
development relies on the quality of early relationships. In the words
of the National Academy of Sciences committee that wrote From Neurons
to Neighborhoods, ``Parents and other regular caregivers in children's
lives are the 'active ingredients' of environmental influence during
the early childhood period. Children grow and thrive in the context of
close and dependable relationship that provide love and nurturance,
security, responsive interaction, and encouragement for exploration.''
\19\ Relationships within and outside the family are important as
catalysts for learning, sources of security, and supports for
developing self-confidence.
The quality of early relationships is also important for brain
development for several reasons.\20\ First, early social interaction
provides infants and toddlers with a wealth of simultaneous and
integrated stimulation--sights, sounds (including language), emotional
arousal, touch, social signaling--that is well-calibrated to their
capacities for understanding and responding. It is difficult to imagine
a toy, DVD, or other manufactured product that can come close to
matching everyday, sensitive parent-child interaction for the qualities
of stimulation that are optimal for fostering brain development.
Moreover, because parents and other caregivers adjust their interaction
to the child's developing capabilities, they provide a continuing
catalyst for the developing brain.
In addition, supportive early relationships can buffer the effects
of stress on young children. In one study, for example, temperamentally
fearful children who were faced with mildly stressful events exhibited
lower physiological stress responses when they were accompanied by
mothers to whom they were securely attached in comparison with fearful
children who were in insecure attachment relationships.\21\ Studies
like these are consistent with the findings of many other studies with
primates and rats that attest to the stress-buffering functions of
early close relationships.\22\ Taken together, they indicate that one
of the important ways that relationships matter to young children is
that they provide support in difficult circumstances, with the absence
of such supportive relationships a significant added risk for children
growing up in difficult circumstances.
Early interventions can be effective
There is now a significant science of early intervention that
shows, in carefully-designed studies involved randomized controls, the
long-term benefits to young children from their participation in high-
quality early intervention programs. These studies collectively
indicate that early intervention programs can improve developmental
outcomes for children who are at risk of long-term difficulty--
especially if the programs are carefully-designed and thoughtfully
implemented.\23\ Taken together, evaluation studies in this literature
support the conclusions reported in From Neurons to Neighborhoods:
Model early childhood programs that deliver carefully designed
interventions with well-defined objectives and that include well-
designed evaluations have been shown to influence the developmental
trajectories of children whose life course is threatened by
socioeconomic disadvantage, family disruption, and diagnosed
disabilities. Programs that combine child-focused educational
activities with explicit attention to parent-child interaction patterns
and relationship building appear to have the greatest impacts. In
contrast, services that are based on generic family support, often
without a clear delineation of intervention strategies matched directly
to measurable objectives, and that are funded by more modest budgets,
appear to be less effective.\24\
Implications for Early Head Start
The science of early childhood development suggests that investing
early in young children makes sense, both biologically and
economically. This research has three further implications for our
thinking about Early Head Start:
--The most effective programs to support early brain growth and
psychological development attend to intellectual, social, and emotional
development, and support families and parenting, beginning early in
life. This follows from what we know about the importance of both
cognitive and noncognitive skills, and the significance of early
relationships, to children's learning. It is also consistent with what
we know about the conditions of young children in socioeconomic
hardship, who not only fall behind in letter and number skills but are
also often lacking in physical health, the motivation to succeed, and
supportive relationships at home. Early intervention programs to
support young children in socioeconomic difficulty must begin early to
benefit from the plasticity of early brain development and their early
beginning in learning, and ideally should involve sustained assistance
to ensure that early gains are built upon, rather than lost.
--The results of rigorous research document the benefits of Early
Head Start for enhancing children's progress in school readiness,
supportive parent-child relationships, and improved family functioning.
The Congressionally-mandated randomized control trial of Early Head
Start, studying more than 3,000 families, has documented significant
positive impacts on standardized measures of children's cognitive and
language development, as well as measures of supportive family
relationships and increased family self-sufficiency.\25\ Early Head
Start produced statistically significant, positive impacts on
standardized measures of children's cognitive and language development.
Children in Early Head Start had more positive interactions with their
parents. And Early Head Start parents were more involved and provided
more support for learning, and were making greater progress toward
self-sufficiency.
--In relation to the number of young children at risk, and the
science of early childhood development, significant expansion of Early
Head Start is warranted. Developmentally appropriate early childhood
education looks a lot different than developmentally appropriate
education for older children, and Early Head Start is a developmentally
appropriate program for young children. The enhanced participation of
eligible young children in a well-designed program like this one
respects our growing awareness of the importance of the early years for
brain development and psychological growth.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I welcome
the opportunity to work with Subcommittee staff to provide any further
information that you may need.
endnotes
\1\ Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons
to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Committee
on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
\2\ Thompson, R. A. (2001). Development in the first years of life.
The Future of Children, 11(1), 20-33.
\2\ Nelson, C. A., de Haan, M., & Thomas, K. M. (2006).
Neuroscience of cognitive development: The role of experience and the
developing brain. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
\4\ from Thompson, R. A., & Nelson, C. A. (2001). Developmental
science and the media: Early brain development. American Psychologist,
56(1), 5-15.
\5\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Early
Exposure to Toxic Substances Damages Brain Architecture (2006). Working
Paper No. 4. http://www.developingchild.net/reports.shtml
\6\ Knudsen, E, Heckman, J, Cameron, J, Shonkoff, J.: Economic,
Neurobiological and Behavioral Perspectives on Building America's
Future Workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2006;
103: 10155-10162.
\7\ Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002).
Cognitive development (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
\8\ Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons
to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Committee
on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
\9\ Lonigan, C.J., Burgess, S.R., & Anthony, J.L. (2000).
Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool
children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 596-613.
\20\ Storch, S.A., & Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Oral language and
code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal
structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934-947.
\11\ Jordan, N., Huttenlocher, J., & Levine, S. (1992).
Differential calculation abilities in young children from middle- and
low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 28, 644-653.
\12\ Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (2000). The
scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. New York:
Morrow.
\13\ for a review of this research, see Thompson, R. A., & Raikes,
H. A. (in press). The social and emotional foundations of school
readiness. In J. Knitzer, R. Kaufmann, & D. Perry (Eds.), Early
childhood mental health. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
\14\ Johnson, M. H. (2005). Developmental cognitive neuroscience:
An introduction (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
\15\ Nelson, C. A., de Haan, M., & Thomas, K. M. (2006).
Neuroscience of cognitive development: The role of experience and the
developing brain. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
\16\ LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
\17\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Excessive
Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain. (2005).
Working Paper No. 3. http://www.developingchild.net/reports.shtml
\18\ Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons
to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Committee
on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
\19\ Ibid, p. 7.
\20\ National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Young
Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships. (2004). Working
Paper No.1 http://www.developingchild.net/reports.shtml
\21\ Nachmias, M., Gunnar, M., Mangelsdorf, S., Parritz, R., &
Buss, K. (1996). Behavioral inhibition and stress reactivity: The
moderating role of attachment security. Child Development, 67, 508-522.
\22\ Gunnar, M., & Vazquez, D. (in press). Stress neurobiology and
developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology (2nd Ed.), Vol. III. Risk, disorder, and
adaptation. New York: Wiley.
\23\ For reviews, see: Barnett, W. S. (2000). Economics of early
childhood intervention. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.),
Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 589-610). New York:
Cambridge University Press; and Farran, D. C. (2000). Another decade of
intervention for children who are low income or disabled: What do we
know now? In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood intervention (pp. 510-548). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
\24\ Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons
to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Committee
on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, p. 11.
\25\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families (2002). Making a difference in the lives of
infants and toddlers and their families. The impacts of Early Head
Start. Washington, D.C.
______
Chairman Kildee. Mr. McKeever.
STATEMENT OF MAC McKEEVER, OUT-COUNTY HEAD START DIRECTOR
Mr. McKeever. Good morning, honorable Chairman Kildee and
all honorable Members of Congress on this special Subcommittee
on Early Childhood Education.
My name is Mac McKeever. I am a Head Start director from
Michigan. We serve Genesee County, which includes Flint,
Michigan. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak to
you today and to testify on the importance of the Head Start
program.
We are a family-focused program. We serve families below
poverty with children from birth to 5 years of age. You have
all received a copy of the examples, statistics and data that
has been submitted. I urge you to review that in its entirety.
I hope it will be helpful. In Genesee County--I am going to
give a brief overview. I am not going to go through all of the
data and statistics. I am going to go through some of that data
and statistics at this time.
Now, in Genesee County, we serve almost 2,100 families
through the traditional Head Start program, 182 families in
Early Head Start. We also, through State partnerships, serve
another 150 children. We operate a model that includes three
delegate agencies: the Flint Board of Education, the Carman-
Ainsworth Board of Education, and the Beecher Board of
Education. We also, as a grantee, directly provide services to
17 other school districts. We also have sites and partnerships
with the Workforce Investment Act's Training Center, the U.S.
Department of Labor's Job Corps Center, the University of
Michigan-Flint, Mott Community College, and we also have
operation sites in partnership with the YWCA, and our own
administrative offices have sites that serve children of
college and working parents.
Head Start is a special and unique program, and it is
unlike daycare, preschool or other early childhood programs.
These are all good programs, and they are greatly needed. They
serve many young children. Head Start is different, though, and
it is different in that it is a comprehensive family and child
program. We provide services to the total family unit, whatever
that family unit may be. We include parents, siblings,
stepchildren, grandparents, foster children. All of those
things are included in our service delivery. Head Start is a
family.
A brief description of our community. Some of you may have
already seen or heard about our community through the media. We
are originally the home of General Motors and the Delphi
Corporation, also the community with the greatest number of
General Motors' cutbacks, the greatest number of General
Motors' layoffs. We are also the home of the Delphi Corporation
in bankruptcy. These are areas that indicate we have one of the
highest unemployment rates in the Nation. We were at 7.8
percent as of December of last year. You may have also recently
heard through the media, regrettably, that we are the third
highest city in terms of violent crime in the Nation.
As to the other areas that may be of interest to you, over
16,000 children under 5 years of age live in poverty in the
Genesee County community. Within our own program, 70 percent
are single parents; 90 percent of these families are in
poverty. They are not at 130 percent, 150 percent or 180
percent. They are at base 100 percent of poverty. From 2000 to
2005, we had 4,021 cases of reported domestic violence.
Eighteen percent of our children in Head Start between 19 and
36 months have not been immunized. Fifteen percent of the
pregnant women do not receive prenatal care in their first
trimester. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate in our
State, almost 20 percent in some areas. Our families drop out
of high school without graduation on a frequent basis. We also
hold the highest rate in that area of many of our counties.
While we speak, these things continue to grow.
I can continue forever with statistics and data. We see
families move two or three times a year. We see these families
go back to their parents, live with their parents, become
extended families. That becomes a very important factor.
We serve through different facets. We have a mental health
component, a social service component, a health component. The
mental health staff visit homes. They go into the home. They
meet the families. They know the families. That is how we
develop the strategies and the ways of working with the
families. We have families help in shared decision-making.
These families share in the actual decisions of the program, of
the policy council. We provide antiviolence training. We
provide workshops that deal with areas of safety techniques,
conflict resolution, methods of alternative behaviors. These
are all critical areas, and in the areas of social service and
mental health, both need to be increased immensely. We are very
proud of our Male Involvement program. We have a 14-week male
nurturing series in conjunction with school districts locally.
Thank you very much. We know that the academics are
important, and we believe in the importance of academics, but
the emotional/social needs of the child and the needs of the
entire family are just as important. A child who can share and
care and respect authority will learn in spite of many
barriers, and that has been our experience.
Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mr. McKeever.
[The statement of Mr. McKeever follows:]
Prepared Statement of H. ``Mac'' McKeever, Head Start Director, Genesee
County GCCARD Head Start and Early Head Start Program
Mr. Chairman Kildee, and Honorable Members of Congress, my name is
Mac McKeever. I am a Head Start Director with the Genesee County
Community Action Resource Department Head Start Program. We are the
Head Start Grantee for the Genesee County area including Flint,
Michigan.
I am pleased that you have allowed me the opportunity to testify on
the importance of the Head Start Program. Head Start is a comprehensive
family focused program for low-income families of children from birth
to five years old. Our program serves 2087 families in the traditional
Head Start program and 182 families in Early Head Start. As the
Grantee, we directly serve 788 families in Early Head Start and
traditional Head Start combined. We also delegate three school
district's Head Start programs; the Flint Board of Education, Carman-
Ainsworth Community Schools, and the Beecher Community Schools. The
Grantee serves all other areas of Genesee County; 17 school districts,
Job Corps, University of Michigan, Mott Community College and Workforce
Investment Act's Job's Training Center. We have sites at the YWCA and
our administration building that also enrolls children of college
students.
Head Start is a special, unique program and is unlike regular Pre-
Kindergarten programs, childcare, or other Early Childhood Education
programs. These are all worthwhile and good programs that meet the
needs of the families with the resources they receive. Head Start is a
Comprehensive Family and Child focused program. It provides a wide
range of services to the young child and the other members of their
family unit. It has a totally different approach than other Early
Childhood programs.
We in Genesee County, Flint, Michigan see every day how important
this multi-focused comprehensive program is in our area.
Flint, Michigan and Genesee County face many challenges. Some are:
the third highest violent crime city in the nation, the Delphi
Corporation's bankruptcy, massive General Motors' layoffs, we
consistently have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.
The unemployment rate as of December 2006 was at 7.8%. The Head Start
program and its staff are on the front lines of meeting the needs of
these at risk families. Over 16,703 children in Genesee County under
the age of 5 years old live below the poverty level. Sadly, the
situation seems only to be getting more desperate. Our unemployment
rates grow daily as more and more good paying jobs leave our community.
This is not to say that Genesee County and Flint do not have many
honest, hardworking families in our community.
With these higher paying jobs disappearing, many of our families
are now working at low paying service jobs like McDonald's where they
are not paid well and have no health benefits at all. As a result,
health care services are critically important.
a. In 2003, 18% of children in our community age 19 to 35 months
had not been fully immunized.
b. More than 15% of pregnant women do not receive prenatal care in
their first trimester.
c. More than 10.4% of babies are born at a low birth weight.
d. 3.8% of babies receive inadequate or no prenatal services at
all.
Many families are also having a difficult time finding stable
housing. We see many families who have moved more than three times in a
year because they cannot afford the rent. There are also a large
segment of children and families sharing housing. Extended families and
adult children are returning to their parent's home bringing their
families with them. Grandparents are now many times parental
substitutes.
Many times, the parents in our families have dropped out of high
school, been involved with the juvenile justice system or may have had
other negative contact with the traditional social service and
education network. This results in their avoidance and mistrust of the
system that can help them. Head Start develops trust, support, and
allows parents input into the program. Through these things, positive
change develops and families become self-sufficient. We make parents
feel that it is their program, not just another part of the system.
Because of the incredible needs of the families we serve, Head
Start cannot afford to focus solely on the educational development of
the children we serve. Making sure that our children are ready to learn
includes providing support for the entire family. These are the most
vulnerable, highest risk families we can identify. Our caseworkers help
families locate emergency housing, food assistance, and many other
needed services. Our program partners with several job-training
programs in our local area so that we can help laid off/unemployed
workers get the skills they need to move forward. Many of these are
past Delphi, General Motors, or related industry low seniority
employees with 15 years mostly. Training programs provide parents with
employment skills in areas such as building and apartment maintenance,
janitorial, dental hygiene, optical technician, etc. We work closely
with the Workforce Investment Act and the local Job Corps. We have
partnerships with local colleges to aid parents in returning to school.
We have a physical site at these college locations, which provides on-
site access to families. A partnership with the YWCA and a center
located at our administrative office also provides centers that focus
on colleges and training programs.
There are other important services that are unique to Head Start,
i.e., we provide family, child and adolescent support services through
our
1. Mental Health Services
2. Health Services
3. Dental Services
4. Nutrition Services--Teaching parents how to prepare low cost,
healthy meals.
5. Special Needs and Disabilities
6. Social Services component
7. Parent education and training. We also address child and adult
literacy through our adult literacy curriculum, training for adults in
literacy education, child literacy curriculum, etc.
8. We also involve parents in shared decision making affecting key
areas of the program, i.e. budget, personnel, program self-evaluation,
etc. This process THAT includes informed participation in the shared
decision making process also becomes a growth and confidence building
experience for the parents. We go into parents' homes, have parent
meetings and policy council meetings each month. Parents also volunteer
in the classroom.
This type of contact enables Head Start to develop trust and become
aware of the families' needs and the emergencies they may have. We can
then support the child and family unit appropriately.
We help families identify health care resources and establish a
``medical home'' for themselves and for their children by partnering
with community health centers in the area, such as the Hamilton
Community Health Clinic, the public hospitals and Mott Children's
Health Center, etc. Health care continues to be a significant community
concern. The majority of local medical and dental providers do not
accept public assistance or Medicaid. These services are even more
difficult to obtain for the adult and even child dental needs.
We have children that come to Head Start hungry. Many lack fresh
fruit and vegetables at home and simply are not receiving nutritious
meals. Head Start plays a vital role in keeping children healthy by
providing each child with nutritious snacks and hot meals that they may
not be getting at home. We also see children that are suffering from
obesity. Child obesity is an epidemic in the United States and a very
difficult area to address. We work with parents to help them provide
healthy meals in their home while shopping on a budget and teach them
about the benefits of regular exercise.
We are finding that many of our children are demonstrating and
acting out behavioral problems in the classroom and at home. Our
program works with these children and provides counseling and referrals
to specialists when they are needed. We have trained mental health
service professionals. The Social Service and Mental Health Staff visit
the classrooms throughout the year, either by request of the teacher or
parent. They observe children with behavioral problems and attempt to
provide child management techniques, intervention and staff support to
modify the negative behavior. In the more severe situations, we refer
to local psychologists, community mental health agencies, etc. and then
collaborate follow-up with the family. We are finding that aggressive
and sometimes harmful behavior is on an increase in our community.
Staff work with parents on emotional, family and substance abuse
problems. We establish trust and rapport at the classroom level and
start analyzing the problem. We then identify and clarify the concerns
and take the family to available agencies that service that concern.
These same services are also available and utilized by the adult family
members, siblings, etc.
More than 10% of our children also face difficult special needs and
disabilities. They range from speech and hearing impaired, deaf, blind,
physically challenged and children with serious learning disabilities.
Our program provides early intervention screenings for all children. We
want to make sure that all the children we serve get the attention they
need to succeed in school. We refer many of these children to Early On.
We see rising domestic violence with a rate of 4,021 cases reported
in 2005 alone. Classes are offered to the parents on Anti-Violence
techniques throughout the year. These sessions include safety
techniques, conflict resolution methods, alternative discipline
strategies, etc. This focus is intended to address our community
problem with violent crime and antisocial child behavior.
We pride ourselves on our Male Involvement program. We believe that
fathers play a critical role in the lives of their children and we want
to create as many opportunities as possible for fathers to reconnect
with their children and family. We provide a 14 week, male nurturing
series, support classes, and special events with child and father i.e.
Bowling events, Field trips, etc.
To enable our Head Start to better serve the families in our local
community, we provide a wide spectrum of delivery models. We offer and
provide a double session option, Full Day Head Start, a home base
model, evening Head Start sessions, Early Head Start classroom and home
base programming. We try to meet the needs of our families by utilizing
maximum local resources to provide flexible programming.
In Genesee County, we also provide family support another way--by
empowering parents to get involved in the classroom and in the shared
governance of the program. We believe strongly that the parent is the
prime educator of their children. We encourage parents to get involved
with the parent policy councils--the parents share in decision-making
areas in the Head Start Program. I have been working with low-income
children and families for quite some time. In my experience, I have
found that the parent policy council provides parents with the
opportunity to take control of their own life as well as their
children. I personally was a community representative on the GCCARD
Policy Council in 1978-1979 and since have been employed as a director
with Head Start.
We conduct extensive training for parents on the policy council and
often find many hidden talents in parents when we give them a chance.
Many of our policy council parents are very good at looking at our
budget. Every year, I receive calls from former parents who tell me
that the policy council and Head Start helped turn their lives around.
Many are now in college or working and some parents have even been
elected to their local school boards and other elected offices.
While the educational and academic areas of Early Childhood are
important, I want to emphasize that meeting the needs of the entire
family is essential. Head Start works because it is a true
comprehensive program and the services we provide to families are what
make the difference and set us apart!
Unfortunately, for the past few years, Head Start and other
services for families and children have had their funding level either
frozen or reduced. In some cases, many new requirements, reports, and
regulations have clogged up the road to serving families and caused an
actual reduction in direct services. This has caused significant staff
turnover due to lack of competitive salaries, fringe benefits and
caseload increases. In our area, family service staff serves 60 to 90
families each. Children and their parents have to once again develop a
level of trust with new staff, which can take some time to develop. We
are hoping that Congress will provide Head Start with an increase in
funding so that we can continue to provide the highest quality
services.
I know that you are in the process of drafting the new Head Start
Authorization. Based on my experience, I would like to make five
recommendations for the committee to consider:
1. Continue to strengthen the comprehensive nature of Head Start.
Remember that Head Start's success is based on providing services to
both children and their families. Particularly family social services
and additional mental health services are needed. The last five years
have focused almost exclusively on academics, assessments, measurements
and the child's educational progress.
2. Head Start needs a significant increase in funding. The last few
years have been very difficult and as a result, services to children
and families are suffering.
3. Do not weaken the role of the parent policy council. Shared
governance works and works well. Parental involvement is one of the
cornerstones of the program. I believe that the policy council gives
parents a chance to have a real say over their children's lives and
empowers them in the process. This truly is shared decision making by
informed parents.
4. Provide Head Start programs the flexibility to serve the
communities they live in. I support increasing the income eligibility
guidelines to 130% of the poverty line so more working families can
enroll. I also support allowing programs the flexibility to serve more
infants and toddlers who need services and allowing programs to provide
more full day options.
5. Current monitoring appears to be an attempt to dismantle Head
Start. Is that what is intended? I hope not!
I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity
to testify today. I am more than happy to answer any questions you
might have.
See attached Local Success Stories.
Let me provide you with some examples of success stories from our
program.
Example 1
One of our four year olds was severely disruptive and noncompliant
in the classroom. Because of this, he and many others were not able to
take advantage of all the learning in the classroom. Our Mental Health
Specialist worked with the parent, teacher and child. The parent was
bipolar and self-medicating with alcohol and street drugs. Her behavior
and lifestyle were contributing to her son's emotional problems in the
classroom. Our Mental Health Specialist worked with the mother to get
her the help she needed. At the present time, this child is able to
fully take advantage of all the classroom has to offer and his severe
behaviors are nonexistent. The other children in class are also
benefiting from this one intervention. The teacher can now spend more
time teaching and less time intervening on behalf of this child.
Example 2
Our second story involves a four year old that our Mental Health
Specialist suspected had symptoms that indicated an autism spectrum
disorder. Teachers and parents saw this child as ``just stubborn.'' Our
Mental Health Specialist helped the teacher and parents to reframe the
behavior and realize it for what it was. She worked with the teacher
and the parents to reduce the ``stubborn'' behavior. At the present
time, this child is thriving in our Head Start classroom and not
receiving any outside services.
Example 3
A Head Start Parent cannot begin to express her appreciation for
the Genesee County C.A.R.D. Head Start program for helping to save her
daughter, from serious harm. It was upon a routine physical exam,
required for entry into the Head Start program, where it was discovered
that the Head Start child had lead poisoning of a level 10. The parent
was grateful that her daughter's lead poisoning was discovered before
the level increased. The child could have suffered from severe
developmental impairments had it gone undetected. Thankfully, the
parent received resources to prevent any increase in the child's level.
``If it wasn't for the physical required by Head Start, I would not
have had any reason to have my daughter tested * * * thank you!''
Example 4
A Head Start Family Service Worker has been working with a set of
parents who both have developmental disabilities which effect their
ability to function, especially in reading and comprehension. Within a
week of the family entering the program, the child in our program was
sent home with head lice. The worker called the family to be sure that
they knew how to treat the problem. Upon learning that they did not
know, she took the necessary equipment over to their home and walked
the parents through the treatment steps.
A few months later, the same parents received notification that the
assistance they were receiving through the Department of Human Services
(DHS) was being terminated. The parents called the staff person for
help with understanding the letter and then what to do about their
situation. The staff person called the Center for Civil Justice for the
family and arranged a meeting with a lawyer who has taken this family's
case. She transported the father to that meeting with the lawyer, took
the father to obtain emergency food and a winter coat from a resource
her supervisor provided, and helped the father fill out and understand
the necessary paperwork to regain public assistance.
The Family Service Worker has advocated with the Center for Civil
Justice to obtain a case manager to assist this family in their daily
needs. Most recently, DHS has required the father to attend Work First,
however, the family has no transportation. She contacted Work First for
the family to arrange for transportation on a daily basis for this
father to attend Work first as scheduled.
______
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Haxton.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA HAXTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE OHIO HEAD
START ASSOCIATION
Ms. Haxton. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to speak this morning. My remarks
will focus on two very critical elements of Head Start
operations, the HHS monitoring process and the Technical
Assistance System. All Head Start leaders welcome----
Chairman Kildee. Is your microphone turned on?
Ms. Haxton. Yes, it is.
All Head Start leaders welcome a high-quality, fair and
balanced monitoring system, and all of us who care about the
integrity of the Head Start program strongly support a process
for the identification of and closure of poorly performing
operations.
The triennial Head Start review system has been in place
for nearly the entire history of Head Start. The process has
been constantly refined to make it useful for program
improvement and has, where necessary, resulted in agencies
being closed.
In 2005, HHS implemented major changes in the system which
they defined as an effort to improve the process. Regrettably,
these changes have led to an approach that is not necessarily
supportive, is not outcome-focused, is detailed to minutia, and
very punitive in nature. The current review protocol has over
300 sets of inquiry which contain over 1,000 questions, all
requiring support documentation, and a negative answer to any
one of these 1,000 questions will lead to a finding of
noncompliance. Reviewers are trained to look for exceptions
only, no strengths, only weaknesses. This emphasis on evidence-
gathering of wrongdoing has moved us away from identifying
actual progress made by the grantee in achieving child and
family outcomes and has, instead, created an overall climate of
fear and distrust that is both nonproductive and energy-
draining.
Despite the good intentions of the Office of Head Start in
trying to make this model work, there have been significant
problems in the last 3 years. These problems have included
major time delays in notifying the grantee of the results of
their reviews, in some cases more than 6 months. Agencies have
been blind-sided with noncompliances and/or deficiencies that
were not communicated to them during the initial visit.
Inaccuracies by reviewers, misinterpretation of data or
interview information have led to inappropriate findings. In
some cases, rude, overbearing and/or intractable reviewers have
made the process both difficult and demeaning, and in some
cases there were reports of reviewers who did not have the
expertise to review a particular component.
The review system should be producing far better outcomes
for both HHS and programs than currently is the case. Consider
that, every year, the Office of Head Start sends out over 550
review teams to evaluate programs, yet from this effort we have
gained no strengths. We have only lists of weaknesses. We have
no organizational or exemplary practices learned from this
experience. We should look at these costly reviews as an
investment where the results become industrywide progress
reports and provide us a knowledge base of Head Start best
practices.
We strongly encourage the Office of Head Start to consider
a renewed effort at improving the system through a model that,
one, provides a fair and balanced process of identifying
program strengths as well as weaknesses; two, is outcomes-
oriented and looks for and documents family and child progress,
creating publishable accounts of program strengths and best
practices; and three, and possibly most importantly, swiftly
closes and replaces only those programs that cannot or will not
correct their deficiencies.
If we look at the TA system, interestingly enough, at this
point in time, there appears to be little direct connection
between the monitoring system and technical assistance. Any
support grantees might receive in the process prior to a review
or following a review across the Nation is at best scattered
and, in the worst case, is nonexistent.
Like the monitoring system, there is a long history of
federally sponsored training and technical assistance in Head
Start, and huge sums of money are spent on the system. The
current system focuses on six different contractors whose
mission is to provide support and guidance to programs. At this
point in time, there are major gaps between the delivery system
and the mission. We would ask that HHS identify a system that
will work for us, looking at the challenges we face following
reauthorization. These challenges are going to be monumental,
and we need a TA system that is artfully designed to deliver.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Haxton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barbara Haxton, Executive Director, the Ohio Head
Start Association
I wish to thank the committee for inviting me to speak on behalf of
Head Start and I will focus my remarks on two very critical elements of
Head Start program operations, the HHS monitoring process and the
Technical Assistance system. Each of these elements is basic to the
foundation of continued high quality Head Start services and service
delivery.
A high quality, fair and balanced monitoring system is needed and
welcomed by local Head Start programs. All of us who care about the
integrity of the Head Start program support a process for the
identification of poorly performing programs and ultimate closure of
these programs if they do not meet the standards. Poorly performing
Head Start programs should not be allowed to exist. We all want to see
every Head Start program function consistently at a high quality
performance level as they provide needed services to our children and
families. Our children deserve nothing less.
The triennial Head Start review requirement has been in place for
nearly the entire history of the program. Over the years, the process
has been developed and redeveloped in efforts to make it useful and
informative for program improvement, and has in some cases resulted in
poorly performing programs being shut down. With the development of the
Revised Head Start Performance Standards in 1997, a concerted effort
was made to align the review process and accompanying instrument with
the standards. In 2000 the PRISM--Program Review Instrument for Systems
Monitoring was introduced and put in practice. The process and the
instrument have been revised almost annually since that time.
The original intent was to create * * * ``an integrated,
comprehensive and outcome-focused approach to ensure compliance with
regulations. This approach promotes quality and supports programs in
delivering services for children and families in a more holistic
manner''.
Beginning in 2005, HHS implemented major changes in the system,
which they defined as an attempt to improve the process. The new effort
focused on systems integration and interrelated areas of noncompliance.
Regrettably, these changes have led to an approach which has been
experienced by grantees as NOT being supportive, certainly not outcome
focused, and primarily punitive in nature. In some cases these reviews
have been fraught with nit-picking. The current review protocol
contains over 300 inquiries each with multiple segments, which add up
to over 1,000 specific questions--all of which require documentation. A
negative answer to any one of which will lead to a finding of
noncompliance.
While the methodology and direction of the process is dictated by
the Office of Head Start and ACF, the monitoring process is managed by
an outside contractor. The current model for triennial reviews includes
the use of Head Start peers and content experts as reviewers and
federal ACF staff as team leaders. All receive training in the
processes which are put in place each year. The training often frames
the style evaluators use to conduct reviews and in recent years,
evaluators have been prompted to find fault, vigorously pursue non-
compliances and at the same time are admonished not to make positive
comments.
In 2005, changes to the 2006 PRISM protocol included a written
regulation that required only the reporting of compliance problems and
totally eliminated the reporting of program strengths. During that
year, evaluators were told to create a reviewer mindset and think like
a witness. A piece of training material used for evaluators titled
Litigation Perspective--Reviewers as Witnesses includes the
instructions ``Don't think like a bureaucrat doing an in-house review--
think like a witness preparing for hostile cross-examination by the
grantee's attorney. Prepare to defend your findings and your own
credibility!''
Additional materials used to train reviewers within the last two
years include a 42 page presentation on guidance for Writing Defensible
Preliminary Areas of Non Compliance (PANCs) instructing reviewers how
to write defensible narratives when describing non-compliance findings
and a 38 page Reviewer Training overview presentation which cites as a
goal for monitoring in FY 2007 * * *''Continue to have review teams
emphasize exception monitoring''. Exception refers only to non-
compliances and deficiencies, and at the exclusion of program
strengths.
Comments have been heard by Head Start staff that reviewers are
instructed by team leaders to keep looking if they don't find non-
compliances. Reviewers have been heard saying that they will keep
digging until they find something and in current web cast training
presentations for program directors slated for a review, directors are
quickly warned that there are over 1,600 measurable points each of
which can result in a non-compliance.
In 2005, policy was established not only for follow-up visits where
non-compliances and/or deficiencies are found, but re-reviews as well.
Re-reviews occurred primarily in those programs that had few or no non-
compliances. The purpose of the re-review, we were told, was to check
the validity of the review team and process. One medium sized program
in the midwest was found to have six minor noncompliances during their
triennial visit. This initial visit had a team of eleven members from
all parts of the U.S., they were revisited three weeks later, with a
totally different team of eleven members from all parts of the U.S. and
then six months later received a follow-up visit with three team
members from all over the U.S., to ensure that their six non-
compliances were corrected. A conservative estimate on the dollar cost
to the system for this evaluation process in one medium sized program
is over $120,000.
This negative approach and emphasis on evidence gathering of
wrongdoing has caused the monitoring process to move away from what
should be the most important reason for a team to visit an agency which
is to review the actual progress made by the grantee in achieving child
and family outcomes. The very reason Head Start agencies are funded in
the first place--to make a difference in the lives of at risk children
and their families, and to get children ready for school and life is
never actually measured in a typical site visit. This negative approach
has also created an overall climate of fear and distrust on the part of
grantees, creating defensive posturing that is non-productive and
energy draining. The process should be a partnership of support. Best
practices in organization assessment dictate that both strengths and
weaknesses be identified. Strengths should be lauded and where
weaknesses are identified, direction and support for correction should
be swiftly provided.
There is no question that the Office of Head Start puts enormous
energy and concerted effort each year into fine tuning the review
process in ways to make it thorough, fact finding and highly
professional. Nor is there question regarding the efforts put forth by
OHS and the contractor to make the process work well and go smoothly.
Despite these good intentions, however, there have been significant
problems in the last three years which have added to the frustration
experienced by local grantees.
In some cases, it has taken the Office of Head Start over
six months to officially inform the grantee of the findings in a
review. In one state the average time for receipt of the communication
from the Office of Head start was over four months after the visit. The
recommended best practices dictate a maximum 45 day turnaround time for
OHS.
In some cases grantees have been blindsided with a list of
non-compliances and/or deficiencies which were not communicated during
the review but appear on the report.
The ``human element'' within the process fostered a
multiplicity of issues
In many cases, grantees cited inaccuracies on the part of
reviewers, misinterpretations of data or interview information leading
to inaccurate findings
In many cases, grantees cited experiences of rude,
overbearing and/or intractable reviewers whose demeanor was problematic
during the review
In many cases, grantees cited experiences of reviewers not
having the expertise to review a given component
In some cases, grantees cited experiences with team
leaders who did not appear to take full leadership responsibility for
the team
We acknowledge that both the providers of the review and the
programs receiving the review are inclined to be defensive because of
the very nature of the review, however, the whole process of monitoring
and evaluating Head Start programs every three years is an
institutionalized custom that could be and should be a far better
experience and have far greater outcomes for both HHS and the grantees
than is currently the case.
It is absolutely essential, given the intensity of the review
process, and the costs associated, that EVERY Head Start program should
emerge stronger and improved as a result of the review. The current
PRISM Protocol has ten sections and over three hundred multi-part
questions, each requiring an extensive multi-part answer and all
requiring supportive evidence. Each of these sections and each of these
questions could provide enormous learning opportunities for both the
Head Start program and the review team. Every year, the Office of Head
Start sends over 550 primary review teams out to the field to conduct
in-depth evaluations of programs, yet from this effort we have gained
no organizational or industry wide exemplary practices or strengths; we
have only lists of weaknesses. Instead of the extensive dollar costs of
these reviews being seen as an expense to the Office of Head Start,
these dollars should be viewed as and treated as an investment, with
the process of reviews positioned so that the results are an industry
wide progress report and a knowledge base of Head Start best practices.
We strongly encourage the Office of Head Start to consider a
renewed effort at improving the review process and develop a system
that:
Provides a fair and balanced process that identifies
program strengths as well as weaknesses, and provides ongoing support
for programs to correct weaknesses when they are identified.
Is outcomes oriented, and looks for and documents family
and child progress, creating publishable accounts of program strengths
and best practices.
Swiftly closes and replaces programs that cannot/will not
correct deficiencies.
Interestingly enough there has been, up until now under the current
system, little direct connection between the HHS monitoring review
process and the TA system established by HHS. Any support grantees
might receive prior to a triennial review and/or following a triennial
review while working to correct non-compliances or deficiencies is at
best, uneven across the nation, and in worst cases, nonexistent.
The history of federal Training and Technical Assistance support
for Head Start programs, like the monitoring system, dates back to the
beginning of the program. A long list of contracting organizations has
been in place across the years to provide support, training, consulting
and direction to program providers. Some have been more useful than
others. Beginning in 2003, the Training portion of Training and
Technical Assistance was essentially dropped in favor of a greater
emphasis on Technical Assistance. Current contractors focus primarily
on providing technical assistance to local programs.
At the present time there are no fewer than thirteen Head Start
National Contracts for Training and Technical Assistance. Six of those
contractors are in place to provide direct support to grantees within
the twelve Head Start regions across the country. Their purpose, as
stated in an AFC publication, is to ``build grantee capacity by
providing comprehensive, individualized technical support to Head Start
grantees * * * by working in partnership with ACF and grantees;
assisting grantees to comply with laws, regulations and standards;
participating as a joint problem solver, observer and strategist;
enhancing collaborative partnerships with local, state and federal
entities; supporting grantees with Head Start priorities, initiatives
and special projects; gathering and disseminating current and relevant
research ``This mission is appropriate and solidly applicable to the
role of a Head Start TA provider. Regrettably, however, at this point
in time there appear to be great gaps between mission and service
delivery.
First--because of the number of different contractors providing
these services, there is an uneven delivery system across the country.
Some regions have a solid and high quality delivery system with highly
competent content specialists and local TA specialists working in the
field. In other regions the service delivery is more uneven. There are
differences even from state to state in how technical assistance is
delivered and in the intensity and quality of the service. Further,
there appears to be a general belief on the part of individual grantees
that both the extent of services the current TA system has to offer,
and the professional capacity of some of the TA specialists is limited.
Second--in many instances, grantees report that their individual TA
Specialists spend inordinate amounts of time filling out forms,
ensuring that data is recorded in just the right order, and redoing
paperwork so that the reporting format is uniform. It appears that more
time and effort is spent in ensuring correct report development than in
providing actual technical assistance. In some regions the primary
responsibility for a TA Specialist is to work with the grantee to
develop a training plan. Training Plans must be developed by the
grantee in a time frame which coincides with their grant fiscal year
and prior to sending their grant to the Regional Office for renewal.
This timeframe may or may not line up with the school year, thus making
the projection of training needs difficult and often forced. Once
completed, the training plan must be submitted through a series of
approvals and ultimately to the Regional Office for final approval. The
grantee is notified once those approvals have been completed. Whatever
follow-up occurs between the TA specialist and grantee beyond that is
reported as sporadic and not particularly useful.
Extensive feedback from grantees regarding their relationship with
the TA system includes:
We have not seen our TA Specialist in about 10 months. I
occasionally get an email with some sort of article forwarded once a
year.
I would have appreciated some sort of contact prior to our
Federal Review, maybe even a prep session. We got nothing and I spent
our own TA dollars for another resource.
Our TA Specialist is not particularly skilled in meeting
our needs. We do not get timely responses from her, nor is she
responsive to our needs. Sometimes it has taken as long as six months
to get answers to our questions.
Our agency has not made much use of the TA system. The
meetings with their staff are tedious, often endless and without
benefit to my program. The staff is not reliable and does not follow-up
on commitments they have made.
Our TA person is very nice, but not particularly useful to
our agency. She contacts me in October, shows up one day to review the
plan that my staff and I have already written, and I hear from her one
more time when she tells me the plan has been approved. That is it. If
I really needed support and technical assistance with a major program
issue, I would not contact her for help.
My perspective on the current TA system is that our Head
Start team actually plans, develops, prepares and executes the TA
Program Assessment and the Training plan. The consultant's role has
been to make visits review the plan (and ensure that it is written in
the correct format) and pass our work along to the Regional office for
approval. I do not experience any real consulting from this system or
this person and I question the value of what we receive.
Most grantees have stated that the T/TA system in place during the
years 1993 through 2003 was exceptionally better than the system now in
place.
Third--as evidenced by the forgoing comments from grantees, the
system appears to offer little of substance for grantees. Although
training is not a major focus of the system, on occasion cluster
training within a state is offered if there is an identified training
need common to several geographically close grantees. Even this effort
has been sporadic within regions, and success is largely dependent on
the skills of the trainer. It is important to note that current TA
Specialists are not necessarily content area specialists and most are
not skilled trainers.
In most states and regions, state and regional Head Start
Associations sponsor regular training conferences and events. This is
an important part of the overall Head Start training network.
Historically, the regional Head Start T/TA provider was actively
involved with these events. Agendas were developed in partnership with
the TA provider and the TA staff members were often training
facilitators. In the current system, in most regions, there is no easy
partnership with the Associations, and permission must be established
six months in advance to even get a TA specialist to attend an
Association Head Start conference.
In 2005 there was a study on the effectiveness of the current TA
system, conducted by a national contractor. The results of that study
have not been published or released by the Office of Head Start, and
yet the findings might very well be useful in redefining how TA could
more be more successfully delivered to grantees.
Technical Assistance must be closely tied to program performance.
Support must be available to grantees when there is a decline in any
area of best practice. Enormous amounts of data are available to
grantees to enable them to analyze needs and develop specific technical
assistance plans. Most grantees don't need help in identifying their
needs and developing plans; they need high quality professional help in
solving the complex problems that cause them to slip in exhibiting best
practices. Reauthorization 2007 will bring the Head Start community
many new, exciting challenges and as we move forward with these
challenges programs will benefit from the availability of highly
qualified organizational consultants who understand the complexities of
Head Start. We will not need help in filling out forms.
It is relatively safe to say that in the coming years, local
programs will be faced with many new challenges. Among them will be:
Major organizational culture shifts
Expansion to new lines of business
The challenge of collaboration versus competition with
state funded pre-K programs
Escalating expenses and limited sources of new income
Major changes in the framework of the families we serve
and the cultures from which they come
Much greater complexity in how to design effective program
options and service delivery to meet the needs of changing communities
Much higher expectations for child outcomes
An escalating need to have all staff with higher levels of
formal education
A much greater need for ongoing training and staff
development in topics that have grown in complexity
The Technical Assistance and training system in place to support
this range of needs will have to be carefully designed and successfully
executed. The world of Head Start is incredibly complex and deserves a
support system that acknowledges those complexities and has the
resources to deliver. The future will require a system that includes a
foundation of support not only for local programs but for regional and
federal overseers as well, and the support must come from highly
qualified, highly professional sources who understand not only the
complexity of Head Start and the growing field of early childhood
services, but who also know the complexities of organizational
development and systems management. Head Start is a seven billion
dollar business, requiring world class supports.
We need a TA system that at least:
Has the capacity to understand the complexities of Head
Start and the growing state Pre K efforts, as well as organizational
structures; systems management; and futuristic thinking
Works in active and supportive partnerships with local
programs, state and regional Head Start Associations and regional
offices
Sets jointly defined work goals with the above
organizations
Has the capacity to employ qualified professional staff
assigned to work with local programs
Has the capacity to ensure their staff has ongoing
training to maintain their professional standing
Establishes a unified approach across all states and
regions to ensure an even delivery system
______
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Elloie.
STATEMENT OF PEARLIE ELLOIE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR CHILDREN,
YOUTH AND FAMILIES, TOTAL COMMUNITY ACTION, INC.
Ms. Elloie. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to testify today on the current
plight of low-income children and families in New Orleans
following Hurricane Katrina.
On Monday, August 29th, when Hurricane Katrina passed over
the city of New Orleans, the power of this major hurricane
caused breaches in three levies, flooding 80 percent of the
city. What happened after this massive flooding was a nightmare
that shook the Nation.
The weekend before Katrina hit, more than 250,000 persons
packed their belongings for what they thought was a 3-day
period. Sadly, thousands of New Orleanians remained in their
homes, and more than 20,000 people fled to the Superdome and
the Convention Center. I am often asked why these individuals
and families did not try to escape the hurricane. The answer is
simple. Thousands of persons did not leave because they did not
have transportation. These families had no cars, nor did they
have sufficient available funds or credit cards to book hotel
accommodations. These families had no other choice. They were
simply trapped and could not escape.
The events of this fatal weekend began a journey of fear,
despair and destruction for much of the city's population,
particularly impoverished individuals and families who, even
before Katrina, lived on the edge of existence. In the haste of
transporting individuals and families from the Superdome and
the Convention Center, children were separated from their
parents. Families were separated, and elderly couples were
separated. Many persons boarded aircraft unaware of their
destination, landing in places completely unfamiliar to them.
Our city, our people and our Head Start program were in
shambles, buildings destroyed, staff and families evacuated to
places throughout the Nation, lives lost, homes destroyed,
vital records and family historical documents destroyed, and,
most devastating, the loss of a sense of community. We felt
like strangers in our own homeland.
Despite our feelings of personal and community loss,
however, the Head Start grantee staff moved into action. We
immediately opened offices in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, some 86
miles from New Orleans. Head Start was uniquely qualified to
take on this mission. Our program deals with families on a
continuous basis who are in crisis. Our organization serves as
a source of information and assistance to hundreds of families.
Our networks are wide-ranging, and we have the partnerships
across the city to ensure seamless service delivery systems. We
were there for families to turn to for advice and counsel in
times of sorrow and need. I am proud to say that Head Start is
the ultimate first responder. We were there for our families
from day one, and we continue to be there for them today. Much
of what was accomplished within the first few months following
Katrina could not have been done without the existence of Head
Start.
It is very hard for me to find the precise words that
describe the New Orleans I saw following the hurricane. The
best that I can tell you was that large parts of the city were
completely devastated. For more than 2 weeks, parts of New
Orleans had languished in more than 3 to 10 feet of stagnant
floodwater. Trash and debris was everywhere. Buildings were
completely destroyed. Abandoned cars covered neutral grounds
and the areas under overpasses and elevated roadways. The city
was dark and desolate.
Our Head Start program, however, managed to stay ahead of
families. As families began to come back to the city, we
started opening Head Start centers. I am very proud to say
that, on November 14, 2005, the first Head Start center was
reopened. Within 6 months, we opened seven other centers. The
experience that Head Start had following Katrina was that if
there is an agency that can help parents recover, it is Head
Start.
The situation today, while much improved, is still dismal.
We are in need of urgent help and assistance, and there are
three things, three recommendations, that I would like to offer
to the committee.
The first is that our families are in need of affordable
housing. It is a critical need, and we must do something to
make sure that people do receive this.
The second thing is the Head Start program needs more
flexibility in how it utilizes its funds. Our updated community
assessment reveals and our experience reveals that the need for
infant-toddler care has outstripped our resources. We need the
flexibility of using funds where a community assessment says it
is needed. We also need some assistance in bringing back our
buildings.
It was my intent to share with you the status of the Head
Start families after the storm. Much of what I have shared with
you may have been seen on your evening news. However--and we
have talked about the challenges of high crime, but what you
may not have seen or witnessed is the spirit of hope in our
citizens. We have returned home to the city we love, and we are
confident that, like the mythical birth of Phoenix, we shall
rise again from the devastation of Katrina and build a better
New Orleans, and Head Start must and should be a part of that
recovery.
I thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for allowing
me the opportunity to speak with you, and I stand ready to
respond to any questions you may have.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Ms. Elloie.
[The statement of Ms. Elloie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pearlie Hardin Elloie, Head Start Director, Total
Community Action Inc.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Pearlie Hardin Elloie,
the Head Start Director of the Total Community Action Head Start
program in New Orleans, LA. I am pleased to have the opportunity to
testify today on the current plight of low-income children and families
in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
From March 2005 through the end of July, 2005, the New Orleans Head
Start Program pre-registered 2618 three and four year old children and
204 infants and toddlers in its 34 Head Start centers and eight (8)
family day care homes for the 2005-2006 program year that was to open
for children on Tuesday, September 6, 2005. On Monday, August 22nd,
staff returned to work following the annual vacation period. On Friday,
August 26th and Saturday, August 27th, staff delivered supplies to the
Park Plaza Hotel in preparation for the annual Pre-service Training
Program. That same weekend, thousands of citizens fled the city. On
Monday, August 29th Hurricane Katrina passed over the city of New
Orleans. The power of this hurricane caused major breeches in three
leeves--flooding 80% of the city. What happened after this massive
flooding was a nightmare that shook the nation.
The weekend before Katrina hit more than 250,000 persons packed
their belongings for what they thought would be a three-day period.
Sadly, thousands of New Orleanians remained in their homes and more
than 20,000 people fled to the Superdome and the Convention Center. I
am often asked why these individuals and families did not try to escape
hurricane Katrina. The answer is simple; thousands of persons did not
leave because they did not have transportation. These families did not
have cars nor did they have sufficient available funds or credit cards
to book hotel accommodations. Generations of these families lived
within blocks of each other in New Orleans. They had no contacts in
other places. These families had no other choice; they were simply
trapped and couldn't escape
The events of this fatal weekend began a journey of fear, despair,
and destruction for much of the city's population, particularly
impoverished individuals and families who, even before Katrina, lived
on the edge of existence. In the haste of transporting individuals and
families from the Superdome and the Convention Center children were
separated from their families, families were separated and elderly
couples were separated. Many persons boarded air craft unaware of their
destinations--landing in places completely unfamiliar to them. Our
city, our people and our Head Start Program were in shambles--buildings
destroyed, staff and Head Start families evacuated to places throughout
the nation, lives lost, homes destroyed, vital records and family
historical documents destroyed and, most devastating, the lost of a
sense of community; we felt like strangers in our own homeland.
Head Start As A First Responder
Despite our feelings of personal and community lost, the Head Start
grantee staff moved into action. We immediately opened offices in Baton
Rouge, La staffed by three persons--the Executive Director, the
comptroller and me, the Head Start Director.
Head Start was uniquely qualified to take on this mission. Our
program deals with families in crisis on a continuous basis year round.
Our organization serves as a source of information and assistance to
hundreds of families. Our networks are wide ranging and we have
partnerships across the city to assure a seamless service delivery
system. We are there for families to turn to for advice and counsel in
times of sorrow and need. I am proud to say that Head Start is the
ultimate first responder. We were there for our families from day one
and we continue to be there for them today. Much of what was
accomplished within the first few months following Katrina could not
have happened without Head Start. In this time of critical need, our
families turned to us for comfort, support, information and assistance
and we were there for them. This effective rapid response could only
have been done by Head Start and we did it well.
Immediately following the opening of our Baton Rouge office we
focused on the following tasks to ensure we could quickly get services
to children and their families:
Locating and making contact with 323 displaced Head Start
employees
Assisting employees in adjusting to their new locations by
1) referring them for employment in Head Start programs throughout the
country; and 2) assisting them in contacting their displaced coworkers
Assessing damage to Head Start facilities
Devising plan to bring centers back into operation
Reopening New Orleans office
Assisting staff in their return to New Orleans
Keeping funding source apprized of rebuilding of the Head
Start Program
Using data from multiple sources to develop the
organization's Response to Crisis.
Contacting Head Start programs in Region VI and Region IV
seeking their assistance in locating staff and Head Start families
Obtaining commitment from these programs to serve
displaced New Orleans Head Start families
Serving as a point of contact for Head Start families and
staff in their effort to locate family members
Head Start Buildings Damaged
In order to accomplish the goal of reopening a Head Start center
before November 15th, we had to be in the city. So, in late September I
went home for the first time since Katrina. It is very hard for me to
find the precise words that describe the New Orleans I saw. The best
that I can tell you was that large parts of the city were completely
devastated. For more than two weeks parts of New Orleans had languished
in three to more than ten feet of stagnant flood water. Trash and
debris were everywhere. Buildings were completely destroyed. Abandoned
cars covered neutral grounds and the areas under overpasses and
elevated roadways.
The city was very dark and desolate. There were no lights, no
people moving about, no dogs roaming the streets, no birds, no
butterflies, and most sadly, no children playing. Where there was once
green landscape, now everything was brown. Gnats and flies swarmed
freely. The stench was terrible and sickening.
An assessment of the 34 Head Start centers revealed the following:
1. eleven centers sustained minimal damage
2. five centers sustained damage due to rising water and
substantial water damage due to severe roof damage
3. thirteen centers sustained severe damage due to flooding and
wind damage
4. five centers required tear down and rebuild
5. eight family day care homes sustained severe damage
We now faced the loss of two-thirds of our facilities, a city still
reeling from the shock of Katrina, displaced staff and Head Start
families already beginning to return to New Orleans. The program
attempted to stay one step ahead of returning Head Start families; we
wanted Head Start to be in place when families returned. These early
returning families were coming back to New Orleans primarily because of
job demand. We had to have safe and nurturing environments for these
children who had just experienced so many traumas. The program
implemented its Head Start Redevelopment Plan focusing on those eleven
centers that sustained minimal damage. On November 14, 2005 the first
Head Start center, Diana H S center, was reopened. Within six months
seven additional centers were opened. The other three facilities were
lost to Head Start when owners did not renew leases.
After the Hurricane: Low Income Children and Families Still Suffering
The misery from hurricane Katrina is wide-spread and to this day
continues to impact the city's quality of life. What is life in New
Orleans like in February, 2007? The 2005 American Community Survey
listed the population of Orleans Parish as 437,186--down from the
467,033 count in Census 2000. The 2006 Louisiana Health and Population
Survey conducted by the Louisiana Public Health Institute on behalf of
the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and the Louisiana
Recovery Authority indicated that New Orleans' population as of August,
2006 was 191,139--up from the 158,353 count for January, 2006.
The city's health care system has been devastated. Many hospitals
were destroyed in the storm and have not yet reopened. The largest
public hospital where many Head Start families received health care,
especially emergency health care, remains closed. Neighborhood health
clinics have not reopened, and tragically, mental health services are
almost non-existent.
About half of the families we serve are currently living in
trailers or are living with other families--often three families living
in a two bedroom apartment. Affordable housing is our biggest
challenge. Large sections of public housing developments remain closed;
some scheduled for demolition. Low-rent housing is a thing of the past.
Only a limited number of apartments and houses are available for rent.
This had led some landlords in the area to increase rent 75% or more.
An apartment that may have cost $500 per month before Katrina may now
cost about $1200. This is way out of the reach of the families that
Head Start serves and other low income individuals and families.
Jobs are very limited for Head Start families. Many of our families
are employed in the service industry--working at local hotels,
restaurants, and other service industries. And while they might earn $8
to $10 per hour, these jobs often do not provide benefits to their
employees.
The children we serve in Head Start have very much been impacted by
the storm. We are finding that children are clinging to their mothers a
bit more. They are experiencing more anxiety and are scared that
something may happen to them. We try to counteract that by providing
them a safe and positive environment. We also work with our teachers to
help them identify children who may need extra help. We have engaged
the assistance of mental health professionals in this initiative.
The public transportation system has been damaged. Bus lines have
been drastically cut or eliminated, the number of buses online is
reduced and buses are not running as regularly as they did before
hurricane Katrina. This means that it is harder for low income families
to get work and to get around. The cost of riding the bus which is
$1.25 a person each way can be very expensive for families with 2 or 3
children and a low paying job.
Immediately following hurricane Katrina our Head Start program
spent a considerable amount of time finding services for displaced
families and their children. Today, many of the same problems exist
more than a year later. Families still need affordable housing,
assistance in replacing lost documents, schools for their school-age
children, and referrals for other social service needs. Head Start is
still here for these families.
Lessons Learned
Head Start staff and families learned hard lessons as a result of
Hurricane Katrina.
What happened after Katrina changed forever the approach we use in
moving families toward self-sufficiency. We are resolved that Head
Start families and staff will never again face such an emergency
unprepared. Head Start developed a plan of action geared toward
ensuring that families and staff are prepared to swiftly move their
families to safety in the event of another emergency. The objective of
the plan was to provide information to families so that they have both
the knowledge and the resources to make informed decisions that ensure
the safety of their families in the event of an emergency. Critical
components of the plan are 1) assisting families in developing an
emergency preparedness plan. Each family received a copy of the DVD
entitled ``Preparing for The Big One.'' This DVD, which provides
information and instructions on how one can prepare for a hurricane,
was developed by Total Community Action, Inc., the Head Start grantee.
The irony is that the distribution of this DVD was scheduled to begin
on August 29, 2005, the day Katrina passed over New Orleans; 2)
encouraging Head Start families to maintain contact with individuals,
families and others who provided a safe harbor for them following
Katrina. This is especially critical for those families who do not have
distant friends and relatives that could assist them in an emergency;
3) soliciting the assistance of other Head Start Programs in Regions VI
and IV in the event Head Start families were to be evacuated to their
communities. Head Start programs in other communities were the first
contacts many families and staff made when they evacuated to a
community where they did not have family or friends; and 4) giving
special emphasis to employing strategies that have proven effective in
helping individuals and families move permanently out of poverty.
The vast majority of individuals and families that did not evacuate
the city in advance of Hurricane Katrina were poor persons, those who
had no resources to take them to safe harbor. Additional, many of those
families experienced generational poverty--not one generation had been
successful in freeing itself from the shackles of poverty. Again, Total
Community Action, Inc., the Head Start grantee, provided leadership in
this effort. The Agency had developed its Eight Point Poverty Reduction
Plan geared to assisting individuals and families move permanently out
of poverty. The plan presents eight asset building strategies that have
proven to be effective poverty reduction strategies in communities
throughout the nation where they have been employed.
The Head Start program has given emphasis to two of these
strategies: Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Individual
Development Account (IDA). The EITC program reduces a low income wage
earners' tax liability and provides the individual a tax refund, if
eligible. It has been documented that the EITC program is one of the
largest anti-poverty programs in America. The IDA program is a forced
saving program for low-income individuals and families that provides
opportunity for persons to save income to acquire an asset such as a
first time home, start a small business or to pursue post high school
educational opportunities. Shortly before Katrina passed over New
Orleans a young Head Start family moved into its first home, acquired
through its participation in IDA program.
The last critical piece of this plan is implementation of a
Financial Literacy Program geared to increasing the individual's and
family's skills in acquiring and maintaining financial stability,
learning how to make better use of family income, whatever it may be.
The hope of this initiative is to assist Head Start families create
and implement action plans that move them permanently out of poverty.
It is an awesome task, but I believe that Head Start is up to the task.
Recommendations
The situation, however while much improved, is still dismal in New
Orleans. We are in need of help and we need it now! Low-income children
and families can no longer afford to wait. As Congress moves forward on
how to rebuild the gulf region let me give you some thoughts based on
what I see everyday and how I think you can help:
There is an incredible lack of affordable housing for low-
income children and families. This is taking a terrible toll on the
parents we serve and their children. We need to find a way to ensure a
stable housing situation for all of the families who need help in New
Orleans. This means we need to rebuild public housing complexes and
provide more funding for section 8 housing vouchers and get them out
quickly to people.
Head Start programs need more flexibility in providing
services. We are finding that post-Katrina there is an incredible need
for infant and toddler care. I believe that the Head Start
reauthorization should provide Head Start programs the flexibility to
convert their slots downward to serve more infants and toddlers if the
need is there. I also believe that the income guidelines for Head Start
should be raised as well. Many families are working, but because of the
lack of affordable housing, more of their salaries are going to pay for
a place to live. They might make more than they did before Katrina, but
the cost of living is much greater. These families need and deserve our
help.
We need immediate help in getting our buildings and
facilities cleaned up, rebuilt and renovated. We are now more than a
year later and we do not have the necessary safe spaces to serve
additional low income children and their families.
It was my intent to share with you the status of Head Start
families after the storm. Much of what I have shared with you may have
been seen on your evening news. True, we do have challenges of high
crime rates, insufficient housing, a slowly rebuilding infrastructure,
a wounded health care system and a broken public education system.
However, what you may not have seen or witnessed is the spirit of hope
in our citizens, we have returned home to the city we love and we are
confident that like the mythical bird, the phoenix, we can rise from
the devastation of Katrina and build a better New Orleans.
Head Start can continue to be a beacon of hope, information and
resource to eligible families. We must continue to be a viable part of
the recovery of our beloved city.
I hope that my testimony was helpful to you in understanding the
impact of hurricane Katrina on low income children and families. I urge
all of you to come to New Orleans and visit our Head Start program and
see the situation for yourself. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Chairman Kildee. Dr. Frede.
STATEMENT OF ELLEN FREDE, PH.D., CODIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE
FOR EARLY EDUCATION RESEARCH, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Frede. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am
pleased to present testimony on the coordination between two
vitally important programs, Head Start and State
prekindergarten. Collaboration is possible. It is happening
throughout the Nation. It enhances services to children, and it
can be facilitated by continuing to increase the quality of
Head Start and State pre-K.
In my testimony, I will include information reported by the
National Institute for Early Education Research on the national
picture and on my recent experience as the pre-K administrator
of the State of New Jersey. My experience with early childhood
education programs began as a high school summer volunteer in
the early days of Head Start, and has included teaching and
research in diverse settings for over 30 years. Thus, I bring a
multifaceted view to the issue of mixed delivery of preschool.
In 2 weeks, the National Institute for Early Education
Research will release the sixth annual report of State-funded
preschool drawing a picture of preschool throughout the country
and on a State-by-State basis. This report will show that pre-K
enrollment continues to grow across the Nation. It also shows
that all but 2 of the 38 States funding pre-K collaborated with
Head Start agencies. These collaborations take varying forms
with many States supplementing Head Start to expand access.
Others layer funding to increase hours from half day to full
day, or they may also augment quality through class size
reduction, professional development and enhancement of teacher
salary.
Through coordination, Head Start agencies are able to be
part of a larger early learning community and provide a more
seamless experience for children. These collaborations offer
opportunities for synergies and professional development for
Head Start and district staff as well as better integrated
services for children with disabilities. However, collaboration
can present a complex funding situation and result in
burdensome accounting systems and time-consuming reporting
requirements. Adding even more complexity are the disparate and
sometimes contradictory program standards imposed by the
different funding streams.
For example, Head Start requires that the Parent Policy
Council help determine what curriculum should be used in the
classroom. Yet for many State pre-K programs, the district
board of education makes this decision. State and local
districts may require specific child assessment and program
evaluation systems, while the Office of Head Start requires
others. This leaves teachers and administrators spending
excessive time on redundant and unhelpful assessments that
could be spent on teaching.
Particularly troubling are States where the pre-K program
is universally available, or the income eligibility is less
stringent. Then Head Start has the necessity of segregating
children by income or restricting parent choice in order to
partner with Head Start. It is especially challenging for Head
Start agencies that use child care dollars to extend the day to
handle the conflict created when a child's parent loses her
eligibility because she has lost her job. For the sake of the
child, the Head Start agency does not want to deny the full
program, but for the sake of their budget, they need to fill
that half-day slot.
Head Start directors and other staff members throughout the
country are struggling to meet these challenges. For the most
part, they welcome the opportunity because they believe Head
Start provides a special service to young children from low-
income families, and coordination with State pre-K and child
care can enhance this service.
Ultimately, high-quality Head Start programs are the key to
making these collaborations work effectively. I have the
following suggestions for what Head Start reauthorization can
do to facilitate collaboration by helping to ensure that this
critical and valuable program continues to improve.
First, require that 50 percent of the Head Start teachers
get a B.A. degree and training in early childhood education,
and ensure that funding is available for salaries comparable to
those of public school teachers.
Second, encourage and allow flexibility so that children
can be served in mixed-income classrooms as long as they
receive all mandated, comprehensive Head Start services.
Third, allow Head Start agencies that use childhood dollars
to count this subsidy toward their local match. States should
ensure that the subsidy continues as long as the child is
eligible for Head Start.
Fourth, provide incentives and flexibility to ensure an
ample pool of high-quality applicants for Head Start grants. In
New Jersey and other State pre-K programs, mixed-delivery
systems of public school, not-for-profit and for-profit
programs working together have shown good results.
Fifth, funds should be made--this is expected of a
researcher, right? Funds should be made available for research
to establish the effects of augmented quality and duration of
Head Start. A randomized trial could compare Head Start
Programs that meet current performance standards to super Head
Start with a class size of no more than 16 children and better
paid, certified teachers. Other studies could compare the
length of day and the number of years. Such investigations will
make full use of Head Start as the Nation's laboratory for
developing early education.
I think that this kind of collaboration is very important
and needs the support both of the Federal Government and of
State governments, and whatever the subcommittee can do to
facilitate that would be welcomed.
Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Dr. Frede.
[The statement of Ms. Frede follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ellen Frede, Ph.D., Co-Director, National
Institute for Early Education Research (NIERR), Rutgers University
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Ellen Frede, Co-
Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER)
at Rutgers University and Associate Professor at The College of New
Jersey. I am pleased to be invited to present testimony on coordination
between Head Start programs and state-funded pre-kindergarten.
Collaboration is possible, it is happening throughout the nation, it
enhances services to children and it could be facilitated by continuing
to increase the quality of Head Start. I include information reported
by NIEER on the national picture and draw on my recent experience as
the pre-k administrator for the state of New Jersey.
My experience with early childhood education programs began as a
summer volunteer in the early days of Head Start and progressed through
teaching in child care, public school, and Head Start classrooms to
teacher education, research and most recently, to administering state-
funded preschool programs in New Jersey which collaborate with Head
Start agencies. Thus, I bring a multi-faceted view to the issue of
mixed delivery of preschool.
In two weeks, the National Institute for Early Education Research
will release the sixth annual report on state funded preschool drawing
a picture of preschool throughout the country and on a state-by-state
basis. This report will show that pre-k enrollment continues to grow
across the nation.
It also shows that all but two of the 38 states funding pre-k
collaborated with Head Start agencies. These collaborations take
varying forms from state to state.
Thirteen states supplement Head Start agencies' funding so
that they can serve more children.
Others layer funding to increase the hours from half-day
to full-day. This enhances the educational value of the program and
better meets the needs of families. Often, agencies also provide wrap
around care using state child care dollars. At present only 47% of Head
Start children are served in full-day programs. But of the 11 states
where over 75% of the children served in Head Start are in full day
programs, 9 have substantial collaborations with state pre-k.
Many states fund Head Start to augment quality, for
example, reducing class size, enhancing professional development,
adding classroom materials, and paying for teachers certified in early
childhood education. The need for highly qualified teachers in all
programs for young children is clear. To attract and keep highly
qualified teachers salaries must be adequate. In 2005-2006, the average
pay nationally for Head Start teachers with a college degree was just
over $30,000. Compare this to the average pay of public school teachers
which was over $47,000. And this does not account for benefit
disparities.
Agencies that provide Head Start may also provide the
state pre-k program in separate classrooms where federal and state
funds are not co-mingled.
In some states, pre-k funding goes directly to the Head
Start agency and in others it flows through the local school district.
Through coordination, Head Start programs are able to be part of
the larger early learning community and provide a more seamless
experience for children especially as they transition to kindergarten.
In addition to serving more children and augmenting hours and
educational effectiveness, the collaborations offer opportunities such
as:
Professional development for Head Start staff on state
early learning standards and district curriculum leading to more
effective transition to the kindergarten;
Professional development for district kindergarten and
primary grade staff in developmentally appropriate expectations and
effective education for young children leading to schools that are
ready for the diverse abilities of children that come from Head Start
programs; and
Better integrated services for children with disabilities.
However, collaboration presents a complex funding situation and
results in tortuous accounting systems and time consuming reporting
requirements. Adding even more complexity are the disparate and
sometimes contradictory program standards imposed by the different
funding streams.
For example:
Head Start requires that the parent policy council help
determine what curriculum should be used in the classrooms, yet for
many state pre-k programs the district board of education makes this
decision.
State or local districts may require specific child
assessment or program evaluation systems while the Office of Head Start
requires others. This leaves teachers and administrators spending
excessive time on redundant and unhelpful assessment that could be
spent on teaching.
Particularly troubling for states where the pre-k program
is universally available or the income eligibility is less stringent
than Head Start is the necessity of segregating children by income or
restricting parent choice in order to partner with Head Start.
It is especially challenging for Head Start agencies that
use child care dollars to extend the day to handle the conflict created
when a child's parent loses her eligibility for the child care slot
because she has lost her job. For the sake of the child, they do not
want to deny that child the full day program and for the sake of their
budget, they can't fill a half-day slot.
Head Start directors and other staff members throughout the country
are struggling to meet these challenges. For the most part, they
welcome the opportunity because they believe Head Start provides a
special service to young children from low income families and
coordination with state pre-k and child care can enhance this service.
Ultimately, high quality Head Start programs are the key to making
these collaborations work effectively. I have the following suggestions
for what Head Start reauthorization can do to facilitate collaboration
by helping to ensure that this critical and valuable program continues
to improve.
1. Require that 50% of the Head Start teachers get a BA degree and
training in early childhood education, and ensure that funding is
available for salaries comparable to those of public school teachers.
2. Encourage and allow flexibility so that children can be served
in mixed income classrooms as long as they receive all mandated,
comprehensive Head Start services.
3. Allow Head Start agencies that use child care dollars to provide
an extended day to count this subsidy toward their local match. States
should ensure that the subsidy continues as long as the child is
eligible for Head Start.
4. Provide incentives and flexibility to ensure an ample pool of
high quality applicants for Head Start grants. In New Jersey and most
state pre-k programs mixed delivery systems of public school, not-for-
profit and for-profit programs working together have shown good
results.
5. Funds should be made available for research to establish the
effects of augmented quality and duration of Head Start. A randomized
trial could compare Head Start programs that meet current performance
standards to ``super'' Head Start with class size of no more than 16
children and better paid, certified teachers. Other studies could
compare length of day and number of years. Such investigations will
make full use of Head Start as the nation's ``laboratory'' for
developing effective early education.
Collaboration between Head Start and state pre-k is valuable.
Effective partnerships are happening throughout the nation that enhance
services for children. These could be facilitated by continuing to
increase the quality of Head Start.
______
Chairman Kildee. We will now begin the questions. I
recognize myself now for 5 minutes. I would like to address a
question to Dr. Thompson.
The knowledge of the physical development of the human
brain in children is quite new. It is certainly different than
the knowledge of that development we had 42 years ago when Head
Start was inaugurated.
How does or how can Head Start use that knowledge?
Dr. Thompson. Well, I think what the new research on brain
development is telling us is how significant are the processes
that start literally at the beginning of a child's life for
shaping the lifelong architecture of the brain. But even more
specifically, new research on brain development is also
describing the emergence of particular areas of the brain that
relate to the child's capacities, for example, for self-
control, for attention focusing, for planful deliberation, for
other kinds of cognitive functions that help us understand when
the neurobiological basis for these skills can emerge and,
therefore, what we should appropriately expect of children at
different ages.
So, in fact, we are coming very close now to a time when a
wedding of the neuroscience of brain development and early
education practice can help us give better insights about,
quite simply, what children are ready to learn and what they
are capable of doing at different stages of development, and
certainly that is information that Early Head Start and Head
Start programs can be poised to incorporate.
Chairman Kildee. And it seems that even though this was
established 42 years ago, that they have been doing things that
actually do recognize what we have discovered since then, the
physical development of the brain.
Dr. Thompson. One of the reassuring things, I think--and I
speak both as a developmental scientist and as the husband of
an outstanding early childhood educator. One of the reassuring
things has been discovering how much the brain development
research is telling us things that best practices have always
been telling us is true of outstanding early childhood
education. So, when you hear from several speakers, for
example, about the importance of emotions and of noncognitive
skills to children's learning, that is a story that is
confirmed by the brain development research and about the ways
in which integrated areas of the brain foster and are
influenced by both a child's thinking and also the child's
emotions and also the child's relationships. But that is
something that good teachers of young children have known for a
long time.
So there are new insights to be gleaned from the
neurobiology, but in many respects, the neuroscience is also
telling us things and giving us a new reason for doing things
that good teachers have been doing for a long time.
Chairman Kildee. So the non-cognitive or, specifically, the
affective approach, that would have part of the physical
development of the brain also?
Dr. Thompson. Well, that is certainly true of many of these
noncognitive skills, many of them having to do with behavioral
self-control, sitting still, paying attention, controlling your
emotions, as well as the motivation to learn, the development
of curiosity, for example. We know something about the brain
processes that relate to these, and interestingly enough, some
of these are the same brain processes that also help children
intellectually process information better.
So, when we say that noncognitive skills are important to
early learning, it is not only that the children who sit still
are better able to benefit from group learning situations, it
is also because the same areas of the brain that help children
focus their attention and learn better are the same areas of
the brain that also contribute to behavioral and emotional
self-control. The brain is not divided into intellectual and
nonintellectual areas. As a result, we have to think about
children's development in Head Start, in Early Head Start and
in other programs as being integrated in that way.
Chairman Kildee. The people who started Head Start were
somewhat prophetic then, were they not, in the program they
developed even though they did not have the scientific
knowledge at that time upon which we can base many of these
things now?
Dr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, years ago when Head Start had
its genesis, it was focused on young children who were most at
risk for early school failure, and the wisdom of that time was
recognizing that children are at risk of early school failure
not only because of their lacking letter and number skills, but
because they were also deficient in many of these noncognitive
skills. In some respects, we could today take a lesson from
those early days of recognizing how much both the noncognitive
and the cognitive skills are important.
Chairman Kildee. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Thompson.
My time is just about to expire, so I will yield now to my good
friend, Governor Castle.
Mr. Castle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the testimony of all of you. I am sorry I had
to miss the beginning of it, and I do apologize for that, and I
particularly have a great deal of empathy and sympathy for the
problems in New Orleans and what you have been through there,
and we congratulate you on your efforts to come back.
I see in your background--I went down and visited New
Orleans and got involved with all of the colleges you seem to
have degrees from at some time or another, so they are doing a
good job, too, I think, in terms of education.
I would certainly like to build on probably what Dr. Frede
was talking about, but perhaps hearing from others as well, and
that is the whole business of other services which are now
being provided I am going to say more or less since the start
of Head Start to children of pre-K, for example, or other
private programs or whatever it may be. I am a tremendous
believer in Head Start, and I know it does a lot more than just
education, but for the moment, I want to focus on the
educational component of this, and I think some of these
programs rival or exceed Head Start; some do not do as well,
but they are out there to a degree now, and they were not
before.
My question is how should Head Start be working to
integrate with these programs and these services and the school
readiness programs and not competing against them. The interest
here is obviously giving every child an opportunity, not having
one program necessarily being better than another, and I am
concerned about their impediments to that coordination and
probably because of different agencies that may run these
various things that may be harmful in that area.
Is there anything that we could be doing here in Congress,
for example, to be helpful in terms of making sure that any
program that offers opportunities for young children,
particularly young, lower-income children, to be able to get up
to that starting line are equal? Is this something that we can
be doing more on here in Congress?
I am looking for volunteers.
Ms. Elloie. I would like to speak to that, Mr. Castle.
One of the activities that can happen either locally or at
a State level--we have in the State of Louisiana a Head Start
Coordination Office, and that is a person who attempts to bring
together all of those entities that work with preschool
children, and what our hope is is that we will form a system
that can ensure that most children within the limits of our
resources can attend a qualified preschool program. And there
are levels of quality and of preschool programs, Head Start
being that one entity that provides not only for the cognitive
development, but for the noncognitive development, and that is
a real critical issue so that we are not in competition with
one another, but that we work together to make sure that
children are not left behind. And that is the biggest issue, if
that office can bring people to the table and say, ``What can
each of you do to help this segment of our population to make
sure that this school readiness gap continues to close?'' so
that is the opportunity--full coordination with the State
collaboration office that we do have in the State of Louisiana.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
Mr. McKeever.
Mr. McKeever. In our county, we coordinate and have an
interagency coordinating council that gets all of the preschool
programs, including the schools of Head Start and so on,
together to meet three times a year. We refer students to each
other. If a public school identifies a child who may have more
problems within the family, they will refer him to us. If we
see a child who maybe needs the public school more in terms of
academics, we refer him to them. We go back and forth
throughout the year. School districts in our area, for example,
give us free transportation for our children in busing. That is
the only way we survive. They also provide us with space in
buildings. We at the same time give priority to some of the
referrals. Many of the referrals that come to us are children
who need the whole approach, the family approach.
I think the most difficult area of competition ends up
being for staff. As our staff become more educated--and half of
my staff have associates, and half have bachelor degrees--we
cannot afford to compete with higher education. We cannot
afford to compete with public schools. We do not have the money
to, and maybe we are not intended to, but we need a little bit
more than we have now. The coordination is essential for the
programs, all of our programs, to survive.
Mr. Castle. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Frede.
Dr. Frede. I would like to reiterate the importance of the
coordination and also the richness that having different
partners brings to the endeavor of educating young children.
I just want to clarify that public school programs, child
care programs, Head Start Programs, if they are high-quality
educational and care programs, they are all doing cognitive and
noncognitive. It is not that one does one and one does a whole
child. But the important, special thing that Head Start brings,
I think, is more resources committed to the family, and that
often is neglected in other programs, and it is important that
we keep that for the children who particularly need it.
Mr. Castle. Ms. Haxton, my time is up, so it is up to the
Chairman as to whether you are going to be allowed to speak or
not.
Chairman Kildee. Go ahead, please.
Ms. Haxton. There is the potential for competition. Ohio
had an experience of being the poster child for State-funded
Head Start, and when funding was shifted from general funds to
TANA funds, more and more providers were brought into service.
We try very hard to work with our collaboration project to
ensure that the neediest children get services from Head Start.
Where there is competition, it is very possible that you could
enact legislation that would simply say when Federal dollars
are used for any element of early childhood education, it is
important that the Head Start centers are full first. We
provide services to families who need the services. We have
slots going empty in some cases.
The other issue--and I think it is going to be resolved,
hopefully, in reauthorization--is that we need the flexibility
to ensure that our community needs get met with providing
services. So, if we need full-day services and not part-day
services, programs need to be able to shift to do that.
Mr. Castle. Good. Thank you all very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor.
Ms. Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. There is such a compelling case for early
childhood education all across the country, and Head Start was
definitely a way to focus on the neediest families in our
country. Don't you think it is time--and I think this is a
question for Dr. Thompson. Don't you think it is time that our
country made a significant commitment to early childhood
education, and that if the Federal Government is going to get
into the education arena, that there has to be so much more
emphasis and resources put into supporting early childhood
education all across our country? I guess that is a loaded
question.
Dr. Thompson. It is a question that I could not disagree
with. Certainly there is great value in investing in early
childhood development, and indeed, the story from that is
coming not only from educators and from developmental
scientists, but from some economists who are simply arguing
that the investments have a far greater fiscal return in public
investments and many other things.
The important thing to recognize, however, is that the way
we invest educationally in young children has to look different
from the ways we invest educationally in older people, and if
we simply downscale our educational models for the primary
grades, or, for that matter, the secondary grades, to early
childhood education, we will come up with an educational model
that research has shown not only does not result in children
learning more, but actually leaves them more frustrated, less
self-confident and less interested in school.
Ms. Hirono. I have a further question for I think it is Ms.
Haxton.
I was very distressed in reading through your testimony of
all of the assessments and everything else that your programs
have to go through, but in particular what I wanted to follow
up on was this study that you pointed to, a 2005 study
regarding the effectiveness of the Technical Assistance System
and that no one seems to have a copy of that study.
Can we request, Mr. Chairman, that we get a report from the
Office of Head Start as to the findings of this study?
Do you have any comments?
Ms. Haxton. I am not aware that that study has been
released. It is my understanding that one of the contracting
agencies conducted a study of the Head Start TA system in
approximately 2005, and that the results have been compiled,
but nobody has seen those results. And if any of my colleagues
have seen them, I----
Ms. Hirono. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate for us to
request of Head Start that they provide us the copy of the
study if such a report is in existence?
Chairman Kildee. Yes, we will ask them to share with us the
results of that study.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Linda Rosenberg, Michelle Derr, Kimberly Boller, Kristin Hallgren,
Laura Hawkinson, Krisztina Marton, and Mina Dadgar. ``Meeting Head
Start and Early Head Start Grantee Needs for Training and Technical
Assistance: Final Report of the Head Start Training and Technical
Assistance Quality Assurance Study.'' Submitted to the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., November 1, 2006. The
report has been submitted and placed in permanent archive file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Hirono. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Kildee. The Chair recognizes now for 5 minutes my
good friend from Louisiana Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Being from Louisiana, I want to make sure we are
pronouncing your name correctly, ``ill-ooh-wa''?
Ms. Elloie. ``el-ooh-wa.''
Mr. Boustany. A good French pronunciation.
I am from southwest Louisiana, and I want to say thank you
for all of the work that you have done in New Orleans. The
challenges were great before the hurricanes and certainly are
much greater now.
In your testimony, you advocate for flexibility to increase
income guidelines for Head Start. Is that just for New Orleans
or nationwide?
Ms. Elloie. We are looking at nationwide some review of
income guidelines. I am sure my colleague Mr. McKeever will
agree with me. To be specific to New Orleans, since Hurricane
Katrina, many of the industries have increased their salary
scale. They have gone to $8 to $10, even $12 per hour. However,
many of these jobs do not extend benefits to their employees so
that a greater percentage of your salary is now going for high-
income or high-rent rates because the rental rates are very,
very high. So we are finding across the country that our
families' incomes are going up, but they are having to use more
and more of their incomes just to sustain themselves and their
families, and we want Congress again to give us the opportunity
to serve those families who are making steps toward becoming
self-sustained.
Mr. Boustany. Okay, because I guess that begs the next
question, and that is, if we have currently eligible children
who are not being served by the program and not being enrolled,
and we are trying to deal with this money situation and, you
know, eligibility requirements, how can we justify changing
the--or taking in higher-income children when we have those who
are still not being served? That is a question, I think----
Ms. Elloie. I do not think that is what we are asking.
Mr. Boustany. Okay.
Ms. Elloie. When there are children who need the program,
we are all committed from day one to serving the neediest of
the needy, and so in communities where there are children whose
incomes fall far below the poverty level, we will start at that
level, and we will end at that level. We will not serve kids
above or even ask you to increase the income if we did not
believe that we still had a job to do, and so our commitment is
to make sure that we continue in Head Start to serve the
neediest of the needy children.
Mr. Boustany. I thank you.
Mr. McKeever.
Mr. McKeever. I think it is important when you look at the
income guidelines that we are asking for 130 percent, where
Medicaid and food stamps are at 180 and 200 percent in some
situations. If you were to take the minimum wage for a family
of three, they would be ineligible for Head Start. Now, at this
time--in my State. The Federal minimum wage has not changed
yet. The whole idea of eligibility is not contingent only upon
the concept of income. The concept is on the riskier families,
on those families in the greatest need, families that may be
abused, going through domestic violence, a variety of things.
It is a family program. It is not just an income program
relating to a child.
It is very important that you consider that area. The local
program needs the flexibility to determine which child would be
served, which family would be served according to the needs
reflected in that area. But again, it is so low at this time,
the minimum wage in many situations will not permit that family
to be eligible for Head Start's income guidelines.
Mr. Boustany. Dr. Frede, I have programs, Head Start
programs in my district that are currently being administered
by an interim provider from out of state, and you have
suggested that Head Start reauthorization should provide
incentives and flexibility to ensure that we have an ample pool
of high quality applicants for grants. Can you elaborate more
in your experience in New Jersey in creating a system that
creates public schools, not-for-profit and for-profit programs,
working together, and what kind of flexibility do we need to
look at as we go forward with the reauthorization?
Dr. Frede. When I first joined the State, I actually found
the idea of having for-profits in education distasteful. I
thought that people shouldn't make a profit on education, and
these are children. But we needed all-comers. We needed to
serve children rapidly and many among--I knew somewhat from
experience but learned even more in administering the program
that quality is not owned by one auspice. And that we now have
some very high quality programs in New Jersey and elsewhere
that are for-profit, not-for-profit Head Start public schools,
but the unique thing that I found about the for-profit
providers is that they could often be more nimble. They could
get built more quickly. And so what we did in our coming up
with our budgeting requirements was because we couldn't ask a
for-profit entity to take this on and not make a profit, and so
we allowed a cap on profit within the administrative cap. They
could go up to 2.5 percent of the direct costs in the
administrative cap, which is a very small profit margin. Most
business aren't interested in that. In fact, none of the large
chains took us up on it. These are still the small programs
that are very interested.
I see a gavel.
They are very interested in the quality, in quality early
childhood education, and it worked out great. We had good
programs, we had bad programs and all of the auspices. Most of
them are good, and they are getting better.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Boustany.
Mr. Grijalva for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if I may, with
the Chair's concurrence, I would like to submit for the record
a communication from the American Library Association dealing
with the issues of Head Start and librarians, also
communication for the record from the National Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start Association.
Chairman Kildee. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
American Library Association,
February 27, 2007.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Grijalva: As you know, early childhood literacy
programs are a critical part of Head Start's effort to aid in a child's
intellectual development. Public libraries across the country are
effective partners in this effort by providing early learning
activities that are critical for later language acquisition, learning
and literacy to infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers and their families.
As centers of lifelong learning, libraries have a strong tradition
of serving families with young children, caregivers and educators.
Across the country public libraries are already partnering with local
Head Start centers to offer services such as: regularly scheduled
storytimes; literacy training for Head Start staff; bookmobiles to Head
Start centers; and programs for parents and caregivers. In many
communities, librarians also serve as community representatives on
local Head Start Boards.
In Mohave County in Arizona, the library provides books to take
home after the monthly storytime. Head Start staff report that these
books are often the only books in the home. The librarians chose books
that are age appropriate and that they believe might be of interest to
parents for whom English is their second language.
The Grand Rapids Michigan Public Libraries have had a special
collaboration with the Kent County Head Start since 1996. Each branch
librarian holds a storytime for the Head Start center closest to the
branch library. After each storytime, children are sent home with a
project to work on that is intended to increase verbal skills, increase
social skills, and introduce reading skills.
The Tuolumne County Library in California operates their Worlds of
Wonder (WOW) bookmobile to reach underserved families, especially those
with children who are five and under. Three days a week, it travels
with a Born-to-Read specialist to preschools and Head Start centers to
encourage the concept of reading to young children and using books as a
way for families to interact, communicate, and have fun together.
Since 1994, Oakland Head Start and the Oakland Public Library in
California have partnered to offer Books for Wider Horizons, which
recruits, trains, and places volunteer story readers at twenty-two
Oakland Head Start centers. The literacy program introduces children to
the joys of reading, increases children's reading readiness, and
encourages the use of the library by Head Start pre-schoolers and their
families.
Targeting a multi-lingual population in Yuba City, California, the
Sutter County Library's Born-to-Read program involves four health care
agencies and 11 community organizations including the local Migrant
Head Start Program. Activities include a major public awareness
campaign, parenting programs, infant and parent storytimes and Born-to-
Read graduation celebrations at various community sites.
The Wichita, Kansas Public Library collaborates with Wichita Head
Start and Early Head Start. The Outreach Librarian reads stories 4
times a year at each Head Start site (95 storytimes programs in 2006).
Three Head Start programs benefit from a ``Books to Go'' program, which
lends a box of books to the site each month for use in the classroom. A
total of 536 books were checked out to these three sites in 2006. One
Head Start is located in the same building with a branch library and
those children join the librarian weekly for storytime.
These are just a few examples of the special relationships that
exist between public libraries and Head Start classrooms. By
recognizing the important role that public libraries play in improving
literacy and school readiness in the Head Start reauthorization bill,
libraries across the country can continue to develop new, innovative
programs to provide young children with the tools they need to succeed
in school and life.
Thank you for your continued support and commitment in the role of
our nation's public libraries in developing a literate, educated, and
democratic society. Please do not hesitate to contact the American
Library Association or me should you need any additional assistance as
the reauthorization process moves forward.
Sincerely,
Emily Sheketoff,
Executive Director, American Library Association.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
I was reading the testimony, I was going over the
testimony. Ms. Haxton made an interesting point, and I want to
follow up with some questions on that.
I think in the testimony it stated--she stated that in in
coming years there will be major changes in the framework of
the families' Head Start Programs Service and the cultures from
which they come. So let me kind of follow up on the theme that
was established there.
In the testimony on brain processes that you talked about
and that your testimony addresses, cognitive or noncognitive,
how do you--what is your opinion of language acquisition for
children, cultural, linguistic capacities or competencies for
staff for Head Start programs? And I mentioned that because
2005, 2006, the Head Start, Office of Head Start conducted a
national needs assessment of Head Start and early Head Start
programs on dual and second language acquisition, and they came
up with potentially one of the conclusions, a potentially
negative impact to children by caregivers not understanding and
supporting dual or second language acquisition. In this
development of a child and their brain, it strikes me that
culture, linguistic capacity is part of it and not just--your
opinion on that.
Dr. Thompson. Well, Congressman, you are exactly right. One
of the remarkable things about what we are learning about the
developing brain is in fact how dependent it is, even in the
early years. And what the brain development research is telling
us is very consistent with the behavioral research; namely,
that children have no difficulty in dual language acquisition.
But what we know from the behavioral research--the brain
research has not quite caught up with us--is that the context
in which dual language aquisition is occurring is absolutely
crucial, to the extent to which children are able to maintain
the home language while also learning English, and the extent
to which teachers are capable of conversing with the child in
the language they are most comfortable with, but also children
being able to obtain competence in the language that will be
required of them when they are reaching an elementary school.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. And let me follow up on
that.
Mr. McKeever, in your testimony you spoke of raising the
eligibility level to 130 percent, and I agree with that. The
more families that we can serve as possible should be the goal.
I think--I would like to consider that under current law with
an income eligibility of 100 percent there are approximately
900,000 eligible unserved children and two-thirds of those are
projected to be Latino, Hispanic. And I mention that because
what kind of programs are following that family philosophy and
theme that you talked about. What kind of outreach programs are
there to bring in this emerging population that is being not--
not accessing or not being served by the current program?
Mr. McKeever. In my community, as well as many other
communities that I am familiar with, for example, we were going
to Spanish speaking centers and identifying family needs,
particular families within the community that may go to the
local Our Lady of Guadeloupe Church.
We also--one of the influx of population that we received
from a different culture is Arabic. And one of the things we
are doing at this time is we are soliciting from the business
and from the labor community people that can speak Arabic and
speak in the language that they are. I currently have two staff
that can speak Arabic, and they can go out and speak to those
families. They can also work with those families. I don't
always have a person in the room, but what I try to do usually
and what our programs try to do is identify someone in the
family who can speak English or a little bit of English and
come in to volunteer occasionally.
We also will go to the home. We will sit in the home with
the family. We also want to know the total cultural background
of the family as much as we can in order to determine the best
needs. For example, with the Spanish Speaking Center, many
times we cannot determine which family, whether they are at 100
percent or one of our 10 percent over income or 130 percent,
actually has the greatest family needs, and I will go to that
center and I will say, Mr. Gonzalez, tell us what that is. And
he will say here is what we have got.
Mr. Grijalva. Appreciate that.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva.
The Chair now recognizes his former Chair, the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
recognition. I want to thank all of the witnesses for being
here today. I think Head Start is such a valuable program and
that it helps 1 million low income children get ready to hit
the ground running in kindergarten and, most importantly, get
ready to read.
The biggest controversy that I have personally dealt with
during our last authorization of the Head Start bill dealt with
Parent Policy Councils, and so I will just kind of limit my
questions to that arena. And let me set up the dilemma some of
us are wrestling with.
It is my understanding that under the existing law, the
Parent Policy Councils sort of share responsibility with the
Head Start Board in terms of hiring and firing and budget and
curriculum. And the House bill that I--that passed the House
with Republicans and Democrat support last year changed that a
bit and said we are going to put the board as having the final
say on this issue. And the rationale was that there were
certain Head Start programs that had some financial
mismanagement and we need to have some accountability and one
group that we can look to.
And I am afraid that the intentions were pure but we kind
of overshot the mark there because I had 130 different parents
and Head Start workers come to see me and said look, we kind of
know what is going on better than anyone. We are here every
day, and we would like the role of the Parent Policy Council to
be pretty strong. So I supported an amendment by Mr. Souder to
fix that problem, and it failed on the floor.
But now we are going to take a fresh look at that issue,
and so as we look at it anew, my question to you all, I am
going to start with Ms. Haxton but I will give you each a
chance to answer. What role do you think a Parent Policy
Council should play on things like hiring and the budget and
curriculum? Should these councils have an equal say to the Head
Start Board or should they in some way be subservient to that
board?
Let us start with you, Ms. Haxton.
Ms. Haxton. The current model of policy council involvement
and decision making has worked reasonably well across the
country for a number of years. The incidences which got
attention last year in many ways were isolated. However, one of
the things that is very, very evident to me, and I have done a
lot of governance training over the years, is that a well-
trained, well-managed policy council does not ever have a
problem with the hiring process, the financial process. A well-
trained, well-managed policy council will work with management,
with boards effectively and thoroughly.
Mr. Keller. So you kind of prefer the existing law with
what the House tried to do?
Ms. Haxton. I think the role of the Policy Council is
critical for a number of reasons, and certainly the bill last
year captured that idea, the amendment.
The role that parents play in Head Start affects their
ability to advocate for their children throughout the years,
the importance of this rule in Head Start when it is managed
well by the agency.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. Mr. McKeever, do you have any
thoughts on this?
Mr. McKeever. Yes. I very strongly feel that the existing
Parent Policy Council regulations are more than adequate. They
don't make the final decision on curriculum. They don't make
the final decision on the budget. They don't make the final
decision on any of these things. They participate and share on
decision making, and a good program really makes that program
understand it. If a given individual feels like something is
being denied by the council, it is because they are not
informed properly. The council needs to have information in
order to make informed decision making. I think that is very
important.
I do concede in one area of hiring and firing that you have
a very difficult sensitive issue. You have a legal issue. I
went through four or five of those situations in the council
and have been able to deal with it very well. I feel we work
with our council, train our council, manage our council well.
But I can see there is definitely an area there that could
cause concern. And that needs to be the only area that needs to
be adjusted.
Mr. Keller. Anyone else? Okay. Ms. Frede.
Dr. Frede. I am a former Head Start Board member so I was
on the board, not on the policy council, and I would just
reiterate what the other panelists have said, that it is all
about the management. It was a big jump for me to know that
when I agreed to be on the board that I was suddenly now
fiscally responsible for decisions that I didn't make entirely
by myself. But if you agree to serve on a Head Start Board, you
understand what you are agreeing to and you value the parent
input and the community input. So I think it is just a matter
of watching the management making sure that it is well done.
Ms. Elloie. The whole area of parent involvement was the
biggest hallmark that Head Start ever had, and I agree with Mr.
McKeever, many parents were never the ultimate decision maker.
What Head Start--the model was that Head Start and the board
had shared decision making. And so when the system worked well,
when both entities were trained, and they were brought together
on a periodic basis to explain where that program is going, you
saw less conflict. And I think the model that we have in place
now is a good model and it is a good reason for training people
for community service.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you. We have to thank you, Mr.
McKeever, but we have to move on now.
Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of the testimony today is pointing to how--what
behavioral specialists and early childhood specialists have
known all along is that the investment you make early on has a
huge impact over time. It is finally getting the attention it
deserves because now scientists are on board and even
economists are on board. I had the opportunity, Dr. Thompson,
to hear Art Rolnik speak on this subject who has made the case
for the investment being as high as, you know, 11, 12, 13, 14
percent, on every dollar you invest in early childhood
education, most of which is a public return as opposed to
private return. So everyone is getting on board now with what
many have known for a long time.
I wanted to just read some testimony from the head of the
Catholic Charities Head Start program in Baltimore which goes
to this question of resources and the challenge it produces,
who said we have already made every kind of cut--this is in
response to reduced funding that we could make. Because of the
reduced Federal funding, I could not find any further services
or staff to cut without reducing the quality of our program,
which is something I refused to do. So I had no other choice
but to not renew our contract of two Head Start programs for
next year. These two programs had been serving 459 children. We
may be closing the door of opportunity for those children.
Now what this shines a light on is this tradeoff, and what
I am curious about, and maybe, Ms. Haxton, you are the one to
answer the question, is as the funding is not adequate, do you
think these Head Start directors are making the right choice
between reducing the offering or diluting the program? I think
this person probably made the right choice even though it was a
tough one because he didn't want to dilute the effectiveness of
the program. And looking at it in another way, the integrity of
the investment instrument, if you want to get that return,
you've got to make sure the program quality is preserved.
But I am concerned that there may be many who, because of
generosity of heart, don't want to turn away, say, 500
children. They try to dilute the program and then in fact what
happens is not only are 500 children being hurt but maybe a
thousand because they are not getting the investment and the
quality that they need.
So can you speak to that conflict or tension and how it
gets resolved?
Ms. Haxton. I think we are being put between a rock and a
hard place. If I am scheduled for a program review this year,
given the intensity of the current review system, and I have to
choose between dropping children, if I am given that option,
and diluting my program, I will drop the children because I
don't want to be seen as not providing the quality services
necessary and meeting the standards.
The difficulty for us is we do, and I have seen Head Start
directors agonizing over cutting one transportation route,
saving money, and those children don't get picked up and mom
can't bring them into the center. So we lose them. It is a
very, very difficult process chasing small amounts of money
trying to cover all bases. It has been very difficult, and Head
Start directors have gone the extra mile a thousand times. Head
Start staff will take on three different job assignments when
positions are cut. And they will continue to try and make the
effort to ensure that this program gets all its services
provided.
Mr. McKeever. I am one of those programs that is being
reviewed this year, and we have had to look at those types of
cuts. We have had to look at what areas can we look at--best
at. What areas can we put our best foot forward. To add to it,
one of the biggest detriments is the 30-day notice requirement.
At this date today my program still does not know when it is
going to be reviewed. I am telling staff that asked me for time
off for vacation or to help move their parents to Florida, and
that is an actual example, your request is approved contingent
upon when the Federal review team arrives, and I don't know
when it is going to arrive. And things like that with the
monitoring process are just unheard of. It should not be
happening.
When it comes to choosing between a bus route and the child
and making a good review, we should not have to make those
kinds of decisions.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. The Chair yields 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to ask the analysts a kind of general
question because the Head Start, the learning lessons early and
one of the lessons to learn is getting along with people, and
present law prohibits discrimination in employment. And I just
wondered if anybody thinks it is important that children learn
the way of the world and learn that people can be discriminated
against and whether or not you would think it is important that
some Head Start programs be able to tell prospective employees
that they are not hired because of their race, religion, or
national origin.
Does anybody think that is important for children to learn?
Ms. Haxton. I am not sure I fully understand the question.
Mr. Scott. I asked the question is anybody suggesting that
we change the present law which prohibits discrimination.
Ms. Haxton. Absolutely not. I would tell you that----
Mr. Scott. I don't mean to insult anybody, but we have to
discuss things like that.
Ms. Haxton. I understand.
The amendment last year for discrimination on hiring
individuals whose religion might be the same as the religious
based program in some ways was both insulting and amazing
because I would tell you that Head Start programs will hire the
best people they can find regardless of what their religion is,
even if it is Catholic Charities running the program. So for
us, it was not an effort that made a lot of sense.
Mr. Scott. I appreciate that. We just have to get that for
the record that no one is suggesting that we change that.
Mr. McKeever, your program had an anti-violence--in my
other committee, and I am chairman of the Crime Subcommittee on
the Judiciary Committee--you had an anti-violence program. Can
you tell us what difference it made?
Mr. McKeever. We measure it in terms of what it does to
that particular family. And because of the high violence in our
community, it is very important. We have both the curriculum
that works with children every day is integrated into the
regular curriculum, and then we also have a curriculum to deal
with adults and how the problem resolves, how to deal with
conflict resolution. And we feel it has had an impact. We try
to look at the impact at a neighborhood level, though. In terms
of statistics, the data, because of the movement of families,
it is difficult to tell the long-term data. But much of the
data that can be looked at in the neighborhood, our families
become leaders of their block clubs. They become members of the
school boards and so on. I think we need to reemphasize and
emphasize more anti-violence curriculums and similar tools to
work with families.
Mr. Scott. We need to study that because I have to believe
that it made a significant difference, but some people need
convincing so maybe we need some resource that has been
suggested.
Mr. McKeever. When we bring a police officer, many of the
children see it as a negative experience at first. And when he
sits down and takes his cap off and, you know, sits down on the
floor with them, the children are amazed sometimes. The man
really does sit down on the floor without a chair. He doesn't
have a hat on.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Thompson, we treat Head Start as a holistic program,
and we have had this ongoing debate between Health and Human
Services and Education. Education would take a narrow
perspective, Health and Human Services would treat this
holistically. You mentioned noncognitive skills. Could you
explain why it is important for Head Start to address those and
what would be different than just strictly an education
program?
Dr. Thompson. Specifically what we are thinking about are
children who are at greatest risk of academic failures. The
noncognitive skills are important, in some cases as important
as the cognitive skills. And the reason is that what holds back
many children from succeeding in school is a lack of self-
confidence, a lack of motivation, a lot of difficulty in seeing
what relevance school has to their own future, together with
often looking at behavioral self-control to benefit from
learning in a group setting. Children who can't sit in school,
children who have difficulty paying attention. Children who
aren't skilled at asking questions if they don't understand.
When you talk to kindergarten and primary grade teachers
about the reasons that the children in their classrooms are not
ready for school, they don't as often talk about children not
knowing their letters and numbers. What they do talk about are
those noncognitive skills and they present challenges to these
teachers because these teaches know how to teach letters and
numbers, but what do you do with a child who is not curious,
who doesn't see the relevance of what is happening in the
classroom to their future.
Mr. Scott. Is there a particular need for low income
individuals rather than everybody?
Dr. Thompson. What the behavioral research shows is that it
is particularly children in a socioeconomic risk who lag in
both noncognitive and the cognitive skills. My son is growing
up in an advantaged environment, had a lot of self-confidence
going into preschool and grade school. But children coming from
at-risk backgrounds often have the experiences that undermine
their self-confidence, their curiosity and their ability to
simply sit still and be able to do the things in a group
learning situation that enables them to benefit intellectually.
So there is good reason that programs oriented towards children
in at-risk situations focus on the cognitive and noncognitive
skills because children from these backgrounds are likely to be
challenged in these areas.
Chairman Kildee. The Chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey for 5
minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do apologize. I
did not hear every witness, but your answers to the questions
have been very informative.
But let us go beyond--let us talk about health care. And I
mean Head Start is so important in so many ways that we could
talk about any part of it, a young child's life, but let us
talk about the health care part.
How important is Head Start to learning when a kid is
hearing impaired or has sight and vision problems and how do
you handle it? I mean, you are not supposed to be everything to
everybody, but as the Katrina example you are--would you
respond to that in any order? Let us start down here if you
would like.
Ms. Elloie. May I respond in a practitioner part of view?
Two things. It is very important that if we are going to
work with children and we are successful, we need to know where
they are. And part of finding out where they are is to do the
screenings and the assessments so that if a child does not hear
well or if there is a need for a language development, we know
it early on. Every single child in Head Start, not just
children with disabilities, but every single child is supposed
to have an individualized education plan and an individualized
health services plan. So we look at the child both cognitively,
socially, and emotionally.
And thank you, Dr. Thompson, for bringing that in. That is
absolutely important for young children.
And thirdly, we look at them from a health point of view.
What has been our challenge post-Katrina is the fact that our
health care system has been almost devastated. Charity
Hospital, which is the largest provider of health services to--
for families and particularly emergency health care, is still
closed. And so when we came back to New Orleans, we were faced
not just with families who had lost health records, we had to
begin all over again. And so we are still at the point of
helping families recapture those medical records and begin
again to get children physically ready to learn. And so it is
absolutely important that you take into consideration the
health status of a child before you begin working with them on
any other domain because an unhealthy child cannot learn.
Ms. Woolsey. Where in your budget--where did you budget for
this extra level of reporting that you have to do?
Ms. Elloie. One of the advantages that we had following
post-Katrina is that we just allocated more funds for those
areas that we knew we would need services and we had to make a
case for it. And we did make a case for it, not only in the
physical health area but also in mental health services. We
added to that particular budget because we were faced with
children and families who were still coping with Katrina. And
we saw many, many effects of children having gone through the
trauma of leaving their families, wading through water and all
of the things that many of us dealt with. We have to deal with
it in Head Start because we had to make sure that children
would not go forward with those kinds of behaviors that they
were beginning to exhibit following Hurricane Katrina.
Dr. Thompson mentioned earlier about the design he showed
us about extended--was it violence that you talked about? One
of the things that we are curious about, and I know that people
like Dr. Thompson will begin to look at, one of the long
lasting effects of prolonged and protracted anxiety in little
children, what will happen to these children 10 months down the
road or 10 years down the road. So we immediately began working
with our mental health community and trying to interface and
intervene at that particular point to see what we could do to
ease those levels of anxiety and devastation that our children
and families were beginning to exhibit.
Ms. Woolsey. What a good example you are.
Mr. McKeever.
Mr. McKeever. In our program in terms of not a program
going through the devastation that Ms. Elloie did, but I can
understand what she is saying. We transferred from having three
health assistants to having vision and hearing screening
through our health screening services. That is an added
responsibility, but now it is getting overused a little bit
because they are overloaded.
We also have the problem of the medical home that is very
important to health. Health is probably one of our most
critical needs. Health and mental health. And mental health is
most important. Just as important. We try to help the family
find a physician, dentist, a hospital. Many of them never had a
family doctor like we have. Many of them never had a dentist.
We look at that situation, and one of the barriers we face is
the majority of physicians and dentists do not want to accept
Medicaid. They do not want to accept public assistance. I don't
ask for you to mandate it, but I would ask you consider it,
encourage strongly individuals in the health field to
reconsider serving children that have needs and they happen to
have Medicaid or some assistance as a form of payment.
Chairman Kildee. A brief comment.
Dr. Thompson. Just one brief rejoinder and this again comes
from the developmental science. The issue of young children's
emotional needs and their mental health needs is, I think, the
third revolution that is going to be taking place in our
understanding of early childhood. The first was the knowledge
of brain development. The second was focusing on school
readiness. I think that the next discovery about the importance
of early childhood is going to be the fact that young
children's lives are both rich and deep, but also vulnerable,
and we often find the origins in early childhood experiences of
what can be enduring, problems with depression and anxiety. We
see in young children post-traumatic stress whereas 10 years
ago we never thought we would see that.
I think we see this on the vanguard in catastrophes like
Katrina. But we see mental health problems increasingly common
in children growing up in stressful environments. We know from
the brain research how damaging chronic stress can be to the
physiology of the brain. I think we are going to look at early
childhood differently as a result of what we are learning about
their risk for serious mental health problems.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you. Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask a couple of questions of Ms. Haxton,
and I would like to have a dialogue with Dr. Frede.
Ms. Haxton, one of the new challenges for local programs
that you identified in your testimony was meeting the needs
with changing communities. And we see that happening
particularly in the central United States and then all the way
out to the Northeast. Have you seen a growth in the Latino
population?
Ms. Haxton. In Ohio particularly, yes, and there clearly
has been a growth of Latino population through the Northwest
that is growing unprecedented.
Mr. Hinojosa. In that population that you identify in Ohio,
do you see the limited English proficient students that come
with that Latino community?
Ms. Haxton. To the extent that families come into Ohio and
settle out, yes. What I have seen in relation to that is an
increased need on the part of all grantees to have bilingual
staff, and that is not easy in a State like Ohio. And so high
school Spanish has been expanded enormously so that staff can
be on in granting agencies available to work.
Mr. Hinojosa. So what does your association offer in terms
of support or environmental assistance for your local programs
to address this?
Ms. Haxton. Our association provides an enormous amount of
training. We provide a considerable amount of focus on the
changing needs of the Head Start community, how the whole Head
Start culture is changing. What we need to do as an
organization to meet those changes, not the least of which is
to change in the local community, what families need
differently now than they did 40 years ago. 40 years ago the
part-day Head Start Program was all families needed. It was a
wonderful opportunity. Programs were organized around the
notion of providing a morning session and an afternoon session.
Now in some cities we can't find children for just a part-day
session. We need full-day, full-year care for children who are
experiencing Head Start.
So organizations, agencies providing Head Start services
need to be looking at this very big picture of how the
community is changing, how cultures are changing and what we
need to do to meet that.
Mr. Hinojosa. Ohio invests a great deal of money in
education. I visited your State. And would you all consider
maybe a demonstration project where we could bring trained
teachers from Spanish speaking countries to spend 3 months,
maybe 6 months, training the trainers so that you could
possibly expedite this environmental assistance?
Ms. Haxton. Sounds like a wonderful idea, and I would love
to talk about it further.
Mr. Hinojosa. Dr. Frede, I enjoyed listening to your
presentation, and it stimulated my mind because I have been one
of those strong supporters of raising the level of education of
our teachers for the Head Start Program back since the
reauthorization of 1998 where we said half of our teachers will
get an associate degree and then by the next reauthorization we
require that all of them get that. You are talking beyond that.
You are talking about bachelor's degrees, and I think that is
exciting.
The question that I ask you is how will you deal with the
cost of the--to the men or women because in most cases they are
adults, so that they can have that accessibility and
affordability to get trained with a bachelor's degree.
Dr. Frede. It is a difficult financial issue both for the
individual trying to get the bachelor's degree and also for the
program to then pay for them once they have received it because
I am not advocating hiring people with bachelor's degrees who
aren't getting paid appropriate salaries. I don't think you
will get the quality of teacher that the Head Start children
deserve.
I, again, am going to turn to my experience in New Jersey,
although I think other States have come up with good solutions
as well. It is a solution that costs money and that is that the
State of New Jersey, in order to ramp up the Abbott program,
Abbott preschool program, funded scholarships to teachers to go
to school. They also funded the release times so that teachers
could be away to take classes. And in a----
Mr. Hinojosa. I would like to interrupt you because time is
running out. And I would like to get in writing anything that
you have that has been already put into practice the last
question that you said was important to you personally was
research funds. I would like to see if you could meet with one
of my staff assistants, that we can talk about that because in
the reauthorization, I would like to look at the possibility of
putting something into reauthorization that will address this
concern that you have. And I want to say that I am a very
strong believer of what research could do to help us improve
our Head Start and our Early Start programs.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
apologize for a conflict and was unable to hear the testimony
although I am aware of what each of you talked about.
I just have one brief statement about the position, status
actually of policy councils and Head Start programs. There was
seemingly a move to perhaps diminish the role of policy
councils, which, as we know, are made up of parents of the
children and in many instances the parents have, you know, we
have got tremendous success stories of people coming from
public assistance to, you know, completing high school and
going to college and getting a law degree and things of that
nature.
And so I--we had a concern, I think, in the last couple of
years that there may be restrictions or there may be ways of
trying to minimize the Parents Council from their strong
participation in Head Start. We have a very strong Head Start
program in New Jersey. I am sure that the record the
representative is aware of. And Dr. Frede. And so we do want to
make sure, and I just wondered if any one has any brief comment
on the Policy Council that the way the parents are involved in
is almost as important a part of the program as really serving
the children.
Yes.
Mr. McKeever. The empowerment that we give parents through
decision making on the Policy Council, because the essential
part of the emotional development of their child and
themselves, the confidence they develop takes on amazing,
amazing life. I have many parents that have returned as school
board members, county commissioners, so on and so forth. They
are not the sole decision makers I mentioned earlier. Many
times when you look at things like the budget, I hear from some
individuals that the budget is a difficult thing for parents to
look at. It is not--good programs--many of our good programs
will train very heavily in the area of the budget. I spend a
day in the budget, I spend 7 days reviewing line item by line
item and during the last 4 years, with the freezes and the
cuts, that has been difficult but we compare that and the
parents are amazing. What those parents, that Policy Council
looks at their own checkbook, and that is one of the things we
do. We say you got to pay the utilities first, right? We have
got the pay our utilities first. You have to employ the people
to make the program operate. You have to pay for the insurance
here.
Mr. Congressman, I myself in 1979 was a member of the
Policy Council. I was a community representative. I was not a
parent. I was asked to apply for a job. I applied. I was going
to stay 2 years, and after watching those parents and even the
ones--it is a tough job. It is not easy because some of those
parents want to be argumentative. But through their arguments,
they also learn concession. They learn how to resolve problems,
not just argue those problems.
An excellent, excellent area. Please do not destroy the
Parent Policy Council. Like I say, in the areas of hiring and
firing, you may have some modification. But leave everything
else alone and it should just be a modification, not denial,
not a total withdrawal from it.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. I couldn't concur more. I, too, was a
member of the board, and just made it, too, way back in the
early part of my career. So as a matter of fact, someone was
bragging about they almost beat the Congressman in the
preschool.
But let me just ask this final question as my time is about
to expire to Dr. Thompson.
We are starting to hear more about from 0 to 3 and how
important that part of a child's development happens to be, and
I know that you are going to testify on child development from
birth through 3. I wonder, are there many programs or any that
are preschool and whether--I know we do have some infant
programs and so forth, but what is the status of that category?
Dr. Thompson. When we talk about early childhood education,
you are exactly right that we are thinking about earlier and
earlier, recognizing that the ways in which we do effective
education when we are thinking about infants and toddlers and
very young children is different from how we do it with older
children. That is one of the reasons I think Early Head Start
is a well-conceived program. In a sense it puts together
varieties of developmentally appropriate experiences for the
children but also empowers families to be able to provide these
kinds of opportunities for children, as well as helping
families move towards greater self-certainty.
The evaluation studies that have been done, including
congressionally mandated randomized control studies, show that
children involvement in Early Head Start not only contributed
to cognitive and linguistic gains in these children but also
had significant outcomes for the enhanced support that parents
were able to provide their own offspring as well as helping to
move families towards self-sufficiency.
I think one of the rules that research has shown us about
very early childhood intervention is that an exclusive child
focus is not going to accomplish nearly as much as a focus of
developing the child within the context of the family that has
to be both assisted, empowered, and equipped to provide the
essential components of early childhood experiences that only
family members can provide as well.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies.
Dr. Thompson, I got to hear your testimony and then I had
to leave. I want to let you all know first and foremost that
not only do I oppose any reductions in funding for Head Start,
I support full funding. I talked about this for weeks and
weeks. I have had the opportunity to work for a Member of
Congress for 23-1/2 years prior to doing this. So I know what
Head Start can and does do, and I want you all to know that I
support full funding.
I have a really--since I missed your testimony, I guess I
have a two-part question for anybody on the panel or for all of
you.
My concern regarding Head Start is focused in rural
communities. In my congressional district, we have a lot--
primarily made up of the rural communities. In your opinion,
how can Congress and the reauthorization provide access to Head
Start services in the rural communities or improve the
assistance in the early education, health care, language
education programs and family involvement?
And then the second part to that would be what challenges
do you see providers facing in the rural communities with
regard to that kind of assistance?
Ms. Haxton. I can speak to that.
We have a unique demographic. We have eight major cities
and also 38 counties in Ohio that are considered Appalachian
rural. Rural communities need different kinds of service
providers. We have rural communities in Ohio that do not have a
single child care provider in the county. They are not needed.
Grandma and Aunt Lil and others take care of the children when
they are not in the Head Start Center. What they do need are
more buses, shorter bus routes, more locations that can access
families who live way out or the option to provide a modified
home based kind of program, flexibility rural programs need--I
think should be more clearly as we devise plans for the future.
There are specific needs with specific cultures rurally.
Families don't see themselves necessarily as poor. So
recruitment is often more challenging. Imagine, if you will,
having a bus route, for example, of nearly an hour and of
course the regulations say we can't keep children on buses any
longer than that, and how do we collect those children and get
them back to the center? It is a major challenge for programs
in rural areas.
Recruiting families is a major challenge for families in
rural areas and yet we know they are there. It is much more
costly when we get to those geographic areas in finding
families and keeping families in the roster.
Mr. Hare. Dr. Thompson, I apologize for missing part of the
testimony. Can you discuss the--you talked about stress, why
early stress impedes learning and what some of those stresses
are.
Dr. Thompson. One of the most jarring recent discoveries
from developmental neuroscience has to do with what seems to be
some of the effects of chronic, enduring and uncontrollable
stress on brain development. And the best way of understanding
this is to understand that when the brain is responding to the
perception of a stressful event, it begins to secrete stress
hormones into the body, cortisol being one of the best known of
these, that help to arouse and activate the body. But in a
sense, the body is like a super-charged engine. It can go on
overdrive, but it is not designed to be on overdrive for a
sustained period of time and what we now know that the
persistent chronic secretion of stress hormones on an enduring
basis has toxic effects on the developing brain. We see this
most clearly in animal studies but we are beginning to see
evidence creeping up in studies of human brain development.
This, again, coincides with what we have long known from
behavioral studies that show that young children in chronically
stressful circumstances often show long-term behavioral
consequences that far extend beyond the persistence of the
stressful event itself and can also be manifested in the kind
of lack of behavioral self-control, lack of emotional self-
control, difficulties concentrating, difficulties focusing
attention, which have obvious implications for young children's
ability to learn.
So what kinds of stresses are we talking about? We have
been hearing about them with respect to children that were
victimized by the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, which I think
illustrates in kind of a glaring fashion exactly the extremity
of the stresses that young children can be subject to.
But we also know that these kinds of chronic stresses can
be experienced when children are in situations that are
abusive, that are regularly neglectful, when children are
growing up in dangerous neighborhoods where their safety is
genuinely at risk or when they are growing up in troubled
family environments where parents themselves are experiencing
stress owing to marital or substance abuse or economic
problems.
We are working hard to establish what is the extent of the
stresses that we can consider to be toxic, recognizing that not
all stressful events have these effects indeed, and manageable
levels with the kind of support that close nurtured
relationships can provide, stress can be actually beneficial
for the developing brain. In a sense it tones the
neurobiological stress system so it can react appropriately.
But there is evidence now when children are overwhelmed,
when they are in chronic stressful situations and when they
lack assistance of supportive relationships, they actually
become hyper responsive to stress in such a way that they are,
if you will excuse the expression, freaked out by experiences
that ordinarily people would not be responding to.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Doctor.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
I thank the panel. This has been a very, very informed
panel which has given us some really good information. You have
addressed some very specific issues and some very general
issues in depth. You have responded to some of the disputes we
had last year during the reauthorization. I feel personally
grateful that for the first time in 12 years I am chairing a
panel again that I have such a great panel before us. And I
want to thank you very, very much. You have been very, very
helpful, more than I think you will ever realize.
As previously ordered, Members will have 7 calendar days to
submit additional materials for the hearing record. And any
member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to
the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within
the requisite time.
And without objection and with great thanks, this hearing
is adjourned.
[The prepared statement of the National Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start Association follows:]
Prepared Statement of Yvette Sanchez, Executive Director, the National
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association
Thank you Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and honorable
members of the Early Childhood and Secondary Education Subcommittee for
the opportunity to submit testimony and contribute to this hearing on
Head Start as you begin the reauthorization process.
It is critical that an open discussion take place regarding the
changes that are being proposed for Head Start Reauthorization and that
particular attention be paid to some of our nation's most vulnerable
children. I submit this testimony on behalf of the 28 Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start programs that are members of the National Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start Association and the parents and children they
serve.
Our message to you regarding reauthorization of Head Start is
threefold. First, we urge you to consider the unique nature of Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start programs and ensure that the federal branch
office is preserved and strengthened. Secondly, as you authorize new
program and teacher requirements we urge you recognize and consider the
challenges faced by Migrant and Seasonal Head Start due to the rural
and seasonal nature of our programs, the mobility of the families we
serve, and the large number of infants and toddlers served. And
thirdly, we urge you to ensure that the legislation devotes additional
resources to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start in order to address the
documented funding shortfall that prevents more than 80% of the
eligible children from receiving services through our programs.
Background on Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
Migrant and seasonal farmworkers work in various sectors of our
nation's agriculture industry--from harvesting to sorting to processing
to everything in between. It is hard work and it takes special skills.
Most families earn less than $10,000/year (Department of Labor Report
to Congress, December 2000) and do not have health benefits.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) programs serve nearly 37,000
migrant children and nearly 2,500 seasonal children annually, operating
in 40 states in every region of the country. Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start programs were the first Head Start programs to serve infants and
toddlers. Today, two-thirds of the children in the program are infants
and toddlers.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start was a response to the needs of
farmworker families. In most states, local childcare resources are not
available when migrants come into a community, especially for infants
and toddlers. When resources are not available, parents have no choice
but to take their children to the fields where they are exposed to
pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat and other health dangers.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is Successful
In serving a unique population, the children served in MSHS leave
our programs with literacy skills in both English and Spanish. Programs
work closely with the parents of each child so that they are better
able to support their children's educational goals. MSHS not only
prepares parents to support their children in being successful in
school, but also provides educational and job-training opportunities
for parents as well. As parent Asuncion Garay Diaz comments, ``Every
day the kids show us how well they are being trained for the future,
how they are being taught to read and how to be safe and respectful.
They are being prepared for when they go to public school and that's
where our children really show the difference because they are so much
better prepared for that.''
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is Unique
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is very different from other
programs. Because of the nature of farm labor, children need full day
services--often from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and often 6 days a week. In many
states, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs operate from May to
October, rather than the typical school year schedule, and of course,
many of the families and children are on the move for much of the year
and need services at different times, in different states and
locations.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is an important resource for
families. It is also an important asset for the agricultural industry.
Like all American families, farmworker families continue to work hard
for one primary reason: to give their children a better life. However,
while farmworkers work nearly round the clock during peak harvest
seasons, many times they do not have a clean, safe place for their
children so that children are often left in the care of older siblings,
or worse, are taken to the fields. This is a situation that neither
farmworkers nor growers want--having children in the fields is not safe
and hinders work productivity. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start provides
services for children of farmworkers, keeping them out of the fields
and harm's way.
Funding is Needed
The National Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Association (NMSHSA)
is an association of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Directors, staff,
parents, and friends that meet regularly to discuss issues and concerns
unique to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start children and their families.
The NMSHSA and its membership are committed to excellence in early
childhood education for all children with a particular focus on
addressing the unique barriers that farmworker families face in
accessing the highest quality education programs for their children.
In order to ensure that the quality of the Head Start Program is
preserved and that children of migrant and seasonal farmworker families
can access Head Start services at the same rate as other Head Start
eligible children, the NMSHSA endorses the following principals related
to Head Start reauthorization:
1. The Federal Programs Branch for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start
(MSHS) must be maintained to ensure that the unique nature of MSHS
Programs and the families and children served are properly and
adequately addressed.
2. Until the underlying Head Start statute is amended to guarantee
that no less than 5% of the annual Head Start appropriation be directed
to MSHS Programs, the NMSHSA is reluctant to support authorizing new
program authority that would draw funds from the already overextended
annual Head Start appropriation.
3. The NMSHSA believes that parent involvement is crucial to the
success of Head Start and supports maintaining the current governance
structure which ensures parent involvement in policy formation and
decision making.
4. The NMSHSA supports accountability and the re-competition of
Head Start grantees that have been determined to have unresolved
deficiencies.
5. Pending a review by the National Academy of Sciences, the NMSHSA
believes the National Reporting System (NRS) test should be suspended.
The NMSHSA recommends that the following changes be made to the
Head Start statute in order to strengthen the MSHS Program and ensure
that a greater number of migrant and seasonal children can access
quality MSHS programs.
1. Include language in the statute to guarantee that no less than 5
percent of the annual Head Start appropriation is set aside for Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start programs. According to a 2001 Head Start Study,
(Descriptive Study of Seasonal Farmworker Families--September 2001)
which was requested as part of the 1998 Head Start Reauthorization
bill, only 19% of eligible migrant and seasonal children are served
through existing MSHS Programs. By comparison, Regional Head Start
programs serve approximately 60% of their eligible population. Since
the HHS study was released in 2001, funding for MSHS as a percentage of
the overall Head Start appropriation has not increased. In fact, at no
point in the last ten years has MSHS secured more than 4% of the annual
Head Start appropriation.
2. Include a provision requiring the Secretary to work with the
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start community to develop a system to
adequately account for the number of seasonal and migrant children that
are eligible for Head Start, determine how many of these children
receive services, and identify the barriers that prevent eligible
children from accessing services. In addition, the Secretary must be
called upon to develop a system through which MSHS programs can
effectively work with children and their families to track health
records and educational documents as a child moves from state to state.
The Department of Health and Human Services currently has no systems in
place to assess the demand for MSHS services or to effectively track
the medical and educational records of a child. Other than the 2001
study referenced above, the Department has not collected data on the
demand and availability of Head Start services for migrant and seasonal
families. We recommend that language be included in the 2007 Head Start
reauthorization bill requiring the Secretary of HHS to work with MSHS
providers as well consult with the Department of Agriculture (land
grant universities), the Department of Labor, the Bureau of Migrant
Health, and the Department of Education about putting systems in place
for collecting and reporting data on farmworkers and their families.
3. Any new teacher qualification requirements added to the statute
must take into account the challenges that MSHS programs face in
securing and retaining teachers with degrees due to the seasonal and
rural nature of the programs, large numbers of infant and toddler
teachers needed, necessity for bilingual/culturally competent staff,
and the limited access to quality coursework offered by institutions of
higher education. Therefore, any new bill that requires teachers or
aides to secure college degrees must also provide a renewable waiver
for Head Start programs, like MSHS, that can document efforts to meet
all compliance requirements and identify the barriers faced in doing
so. In order to secure a waiver, a program should also be required to
provide a plan and a timeline for moving into compliance.
As the current Administration has committed itself to leave no
child behind, we are also asking that funding be made available to
ensure that commitment. Based on a 2001 Head Start Study, (Descriptive
Study of Seasonal Farmworker Families--September 2001) only 19% of the
eligible migrant and seasonal children in our country were being
served. This compares to a 60% national rate of participation. The
families who put food on the tables of America and their children are
one of the most vulnerable populations in the country. We are committed
to providing these children and families a strong foundation for
learning. To do so, funding must be made available beyond the current
levels to ensure services for these children.
As the Executive Director of the National Migrant and Seasonal Head
Start Association I would be happy to provide additional information to
the Subcommittee on the MSHS programs and the families we serve.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]