Head Start gets lip service

In American presidential elections, right up there with motherhood and apple pie – and, of course, “change” – is Head Start. Possibly because of the appeal of pictures with cute toddlers, American politicians compete to declare their passion for the preschool program.

In 2000, back when he was running as “a different kind of Republican,” even George W. Bush promised to strengthen Head Start – although the people who knew something about it argued that his ideas would actually weaken the program. We should have suspected something then.

This year, Barack Obama’s Web site pledges, “Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.” Hillary Clinton’s site promises, “She will invest heavily in proven strategies to get all children ready for school, including … quality child care and Head Start.”

But Ron Herndon, longtime president of the National Head Start Association, points out that the program hasn’t actually been supported very generously in recent years, and hasn’t done any better since Democrats took over Congress last year.

Over the course of the Bush administration, says Herndon, real spending on Head Start has declined steadily, along with the proportion of eligible kids enrolled. The current budget, for fiscal 2008, hasn’t done any better.

“It’s no difference with Republicans running Congress or Democrats running Congress,” he says.

“We’re dying on the vine, and nobody running for president is talking about this. All they say is, `We love Head Start.’ It’s tragic to watch this happen.”

The recent funding of Head Start, like everything else in Congress, is complicated. But to increasing numbers of kids who qualify yet can’t find a Head Start spot, the Congressional Record may be of limited interest.

When the Democrats took over in 2007, Congress overwhelmingly passed a five-year reauthorization of Head Start, including funding increases in each of the five years. For at least the first year, the increases barely covered additional mandates for oversight and inspections.

Then the bills to appropriate the money fell to Bush vetoes, and when just about all domestic spending was lumped together in an omnibus spending bill, Head Start not only did not get the additional $470 million to cover the new mandates, it actually lost $10 million. House requests to put some money back went unheard in the Senate.

The effect was to reduce the program’s capacities and enrollment.

A spokesperson for Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a strong supporter of the program and a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Murray was unhappy with the outcome and others know about it. Murray’s office said a new fiscal ‘09 budget agreement, reached between House and Senate negotiators this week, would add another $375 million for Head Start, and the Senate would vote on it after the Memorial Day recess.

In a $7 billion program trying to cover the new mandates, it’s still not exactly a great leap forward.

Spokespersons for both Democratic candidates were shocked that anyone could question their commitment to Head Start.

“Sen. Obama is an active and adamant supporter of Head Start,” wrote spokesman Nick Shapiro, attaching a long list of his actions.

“Hillary Clinton has been an advocate for children and families going back to her days at the Children’s Defense Fund,” declared spokeswoman Julie Edwards. “She has been a forceful champion for Head Start since her earliest days as first lady.”

Both those statements are no doubt true, and certainly Clinton and Obama have had other things on their minds over the last year than the details of the Senate appropriations process.

But it’s also true that the deep – and often bipartisan – affection expressed for Head Start on the campaign trail contrasts sharply with the program’s experiences in the budget process.

“People are writing in, asking for permission to cut back,” says Herndon.

At least there are still enough programs for candidates’ photo opportunities.