Report: Inadequate Head Start funding hindering early education program

CEDAR RAPIDS — Sitting cross-legged on a green mat, Makhi Bousman, 4, pulled small blue, green, red and yellow toy trains and buses out of a plastic tub on Wednesday.

He placed them in neat groups by color — practicing sorting, counting and creating patterns — while his Head Start teacher, Kara Bentley, asked him questions about whether the vehicles traveled along roads or tracks.

Makhi is one of more than 7,600 3- and 4-year-old Iowa children who receive early education through Head Start, a federal program that also provides nutrition and health services to low-income children and their families.

Nationally, the program is underfunded, according to a National Institute for Early Education Research report released Wednesday. The institute is part of the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Authors of the 478-page report are recommending a near tripling of the program's budget — to more than $20 billion.

The first-of-its-kind study also found the federal program's implementation varies dramatically from state to state. In 18 states — including Iowa — programs were ranked as 'significantly below' classroom quality thresholds.

In Eastern Iowa, Head Start programs rely on local and state partners to provide services to low-income children and families, said Christi Regan. She is the early childhood programs manager for the Hawkeye Area Community Action Program, which provides Head Start and Early Head Start programming to about 750 children in six Eastern Iowa counties.

Head Start has promoted school readiness for low-income children since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson established it as part of his 'War on Poverty.'

'Head Start programs across the state and across the nation, funding is a challenge for us,' Regan said. 'To provide the comprehensive services that we offer to children and families, we really haven't had a funding increase (except for) some to keep up with the rising costs of day-to-day costs to operate.'

The report analyzed data from the 2014-2015 school year in 50 states, Washington, D.C., and six U.S. territories. In Iowa, it identified some bright spots:

l After cost-of-living adjustments, Head Start programs in Iowa received $8,334 per child, more than the national average of $8,038.

l More Head Start teachers in Iowa hold a bachelor's degree, 88 percent, than the national average of 73 percent. Early Head Start teachers, who teach children younger than 3, are also slightly more likely to hold a bachelor's degree: 32 percent compared to about 30 percent nationally.

In many of the report's other measures, Iowa fell short of national averages.

l 9 percent of Iowa's low-income children under 5 are enrolled in Head Start, below the 10 percent national average.

l Federal funding per child for Early Head Start in Iowa was $11,976, below the national average of $12,575.

l Only 20 percent, compared to a national average of 42 percent, of enrolled children attend Head Start for at least 1,020 hours a year.

l Head Start teachers with a bachelor's degree earned about $31,962 and Early Head Start teachers earned about $32,686. Similarly qualified Iowa public school teachers make about $53,524.

'Head Start is targeted to work with children and families that are at or below 100 percent of poverty guidelines,' Regan said. 'They already have barriers in front of them to have self-sufficiency. Head Start is coming in and providing a quality preschool experience for children.'

But the authors of the report, which received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, wrote Head Start cannot fulfill those missions unless Congress allocates adequate funding. They called for a bipartisan committee of policymakers, researchers and educators to address how Head Start can better serve children in poverty.

'Despite decades of bipartisan support for Head Start, we conclude that the program suffers from inadequate overall public investment,' the report's authors wrote. 'Simply put, the program is not funded at a level that would make it possible to provide child development services of sufficient quality and duration to achieve its goals while serving all eligible children even at ages 3 and 4, much less for those under age 3.'

— The Washington Post contributed to this report.

l Comments: (319) 398-8330; molly.duffy@thegazette.com