One in four childcare seats in Chicago, or 25%, are tied to Head Start funding. In some neighborhoods, it’s more than 80%.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched the program more than six decades ago, and it has continued to offer early childhood education, health, nutrition and family services to support millions of low-income families across the country.
In Chicago, half of the city’s Head Start families rely on it so their parents can work, according to the Early Childhood Research Alliance of Chicago (EC*REACH). If you don’t have a child in the program, it’s easy to miss what’s about to happen. The federal government is quietly proposing changes that would hollow out the country’s most durable early childhood education program — and, with it, the local childcare system that keeps parents employed and kindergartners ready for school entry.
At first glance, the proposed rules from the HHS on Head Start regulations and educators’ wages and benefits sound almost enticing, even to a longtime researcher of Head Start like me.
Two billion dollars in savings and reduced administrative burden are promised, and an additional 236,000 Head Start slots. It’s almost too good to be true. That’s because it is.
The savings largely come on the backs of childcare workers, who are already among the lowest-paid professionals out there, earning often only $15 per hour.
HHS has proposed removing recent requirements for higher wages and benefits, calling them “costly and overly prescriptive.” In Chicago, Head Start educators are already leaving for higher-paying jobs at places such as Amazon fulfillment centers. Cut their pay, and the classrooms that remain will be staffed by less experienced teachers — if they can be staffed at all.
Those promised additional slots are achieved by increasing the number of children in each classroom. The proposed rule would eliminate all limits on class size and child-to-staff ratios and instead default to state licensure standards.
For example, Head Start currently caps classrooms for 3-year-olds at eight children per teacher. In Illinois, that could rise to 10-to-1 — a 25% increase. Other states would be much worse.
In Mississippi, for example, it could rise to 14-to-1, meaning one teacher would be responsible for 75% more children. As a former teacher in Chicago Public Schools, I dare anyone who thinks this is a good idea to spend a day with 14 three-year-olds while earning $15 an hour — the national average for childcare workers.
The administration’s goal of reducing administrative burden goes hand in hand with the gutting of the regulations that make Head Start special. As one example, the proposed rules rescind the entire framework for family and community engagement — the services that make Head Start a whole-family, anti-poverty intervention rather than just daycare.
Economists in a classic 2013 study found that Head Start increased the time parents spend reading and doing math with their children.
My own research from 2014 shows that Head Start raises the level of education parents themselves attain. Our most recent work, from 2024, demonstrates that supporting parents through enhanced education and training does not interfere with the benefits of Head Start for children.
Another recent study finds that families whose children begin Head Start at age 3 see lasting gains in household income. These positive effects are likely due to Head Start offering a key work support (full-day childcare) as well as key services, such as GED courses and parenting classes.
More Top Picks Best Baby Bassinets
These beneficial outcomes are also because of the deeply human-centered approach to Head Start, where it functions as a place of trust, a source of community and a hub for the services that low-income families otherwise may struggle to piece together.
If the family-engagement component is removed, the benefits for parents likely go with it.
Most people would agree Head Start could use some changes. Reporting requirements are burdensome. Some performance standards deserve a fresh look. But the proposed rule doesn’t trim red tape — it strips out the pieces that make Head Start work.
It reduces math and literacy instruction requirements. It eliminates required medical and dental screenings. It removes Spanish instruction for English language learners. Public comment on the proposed rules is telling. What remains will be subpar, and likely unsafe, daycare for working, low-income families.
The $2 billion in short-term savings will be paid back, with interest, over decades in lost human potential. Six decades of research show that strong investment in young children produces some of the highest returns in public policy.
Head Start was launched in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, designed by developmental scientists in collaboration with policymakers. The story of Head Start has never been a fairy tale. There have been missteps and disappointments, but it is one of the few federal programs that has taken the best available evidence and built a nationwide delivery system around it.
Policymakers, researchers and experts need to use the best evidence to discover ways to improve Head Start, not dismantle it.
Head Start has always shown what happens when science, humanity and smart policy meet. In Chicago and beyond, we can’t afford to let that go and lose our head start.
Terri J. Sobol is associate professor in the School of Education and Social Policy and faculty co-director of the Early Childhood Research Alliance of Chicago (EC*REACH) at Northwestern University.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].