As I have blogged about in the past, I’m a huge fan of Head Start!

Many early childhood experts believe that Head Start is one of the most important social and educational investments in children, families and communities that the United States has ever undertaken. Head Start has remained strong in the face of changing political and fiscal climates over the past 46 years because it has continually improved the services it delivers to children and families and to the changing needs of local communities. Some might even argue that this is the only successful anti-poverty program that can actually improve outcomes for the very poor children attending preschool and PreK.

So when the announcement came late December that 132 Head Start grantees were “not performing” to the standards outlined by the Office of Head Start– folks like me were full of mixed emotions!

Because I was part of the Head Start training and technical assistance network, I can tell you we used to have an inside joke, “once a Head Start always Head Start.” This was a reflection of the sad reality that adhering to the Head Start Performance Standards and maintaining quality were incredibly challenging for many programs. With the new policy known as the “Head Start re-competition” ordered by Congress in 2007, I was thrilled to see the commitment by the Head Start Bureau to lift and push for higher quality programs. It was a step in the right direction.

Now that the day has come to hold Head Start programs accountable and to ensure quality – I have loads of questions. In the District, two Head Start programs (two of the largest) – the Edward C. Mazique Parent Child Center, Inc, and the United Planning Organization were on the list of programs notified that they have to re-compete.

This means that the current Head Start programs are no longer guaranteed to receive another federal grant and will have to re-compete for grant dollars with the pool of other organizations that demonstrate quality based on seven indicators, including CLASS scores and alignment of school readiness goals.

But neither may receive a new grant. Together, they provide services to 2,144 children from birth to five in some of the poorest parts of our city. UPO, as the biggest Head Start grantee in the District, has historically subcontracted with many providers throughout the city.

What will happen to these young children in the next school year when their Head Start center will no longer provide early care and education? Will other providers step in to fill the gap? If so, will these families be able to obtain slots? What are the ramifications in the long- and short-term for the families and the comprehensive services that they receive? Amidst all the many unanswered questions, I am worried for these families and their children.

ENDNOTES

According to the 2011 Program Information Report (attached and currently filtered to show only DC): United Planning Organization serves 1,928 children and 24 pregnant women in eight different programs. Two of these programs are a Mazique Head Start and Mazique Early Head Start which serve 216 children and 10 pregnant women.

Edward C. Mazique Parent Child Center, Inc. as its own separate grantee serves an additional 90 children and 11 pregnant women.