The Real Cost of Weakening Head Start Standards

Head Start in MPS. Photo courtesy of MPS.

In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a proposal to fundamentally change Head Start, a program that has served low-income families for more than 60 years.

HHS proposes cutting 90% of the rules and regulations that govern Head Start, arguing that programs would gain flexibility and save money that could be reinvested into serving more children and in raising each state’s allowable teacher-to-child ratios.

Collectively, we have worked inside and outside of government to support education and the educator workforce for nearly half a century, and we have never seen anything like this. Reducing some of the administrative burden on Head Start grantees would save time and money, but removing nearly all of the standards that make this program so successful is likely to lead to unsafe conditions for the children we have promised a strong start.

The teacher-to-child ratio isn’t “red tape.” It is backed by evidence about how much support children of each age need to be safe and supported. Caring for young children is skilled, demanding work with little margin for error, and safe supervision depends on having enough adults in the room.

Idaho offers a preview of the direction HHS is heading. In 2025, lawmakers there began with a bill to eliminate state-set ratios entirely, asking each program to set its own ratios. Wisconsin’s children deserve better than experiments. After public outcry in Idaho, the bill was amended because you don’t have to be an expert to know that babies deserve the most support; they are our future.

In 1965, as part of the War on Poverty, policymakers decided that a child’s circumstances at birth shouldn’t determine her future. Head Start and Early Head Start promised access to high-quality early learning and a strong support system, helping families facing the greatest financial challenges to thrive. For more than 60 years, Head Start has served as a critical link in our economic infrastructure. It has evolved to meet the needs of working parents with longer days, even as funding has not kept pace with rising costs.

HHS’s proposed rule, Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs, would allow larger classes, shorter program days, lower staff pay and fewer teaching jobs. It would eliminate key requirements for serving children with disabilities and multilingual learners, threatening their access to the services and supports that help them fully participate and succeed. It would also drastically reduce the federal funding that can be spent on the everyday operational costs of delivering services to families.

Head Start’s success is built on a commitment to proven practices that support children’s learning, health, and development. Weakening those standards risks eroding both program quality and public confidence in the results Head Start delivers for children, families, and communities. In all our years of experience, through the ups and downs of funding, politics, and legislation, we have never been more concerned than we are right now. A hugely popular program, justified by decades of bipartisan federal investment, risks ruin at the hands of HHS.

For the 12,000 children enrolled in Head Start in Wisconsin, their families, educators, and communities, the consequences would be felt close to home. This proposal would limit access to care, especially in rural Wisconsin, where Head Start is often the only option available to families.

We urge everyone who cares about the future of our country’s children to submit a public comment by October 6. Every voice matters — and this is the moment to make yours heard.

By Ruth Schmidt, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association, and Jennie Mauer, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association