School is starting, and Pres. Trump recently spoke at a Rose Garden event about his administration’s education policy approach, which emphasizes returning education to states and families.

As of August, the Trump administration is once again seeking a major reduction in federal regulation in education, this time with Head Start, a federal preschool program for kids from low-income households.

What began in 1965 as an eight-week summer program serving low-income preschool children and their families under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” has grown to include full-year services and now serves over 700,000 children a year.

Unsurprisingly, as the program expanded, so did the federal framework and regulations. Now the current administration is seeking to slash certain requirements and return more decisions to state and local decision-makers.

This idea that those closest to the issue or people are best suited to make decisions is a key principle that informs federalism – the idea that government is and ought to be divided into federal and state (and thereby local) power. Reforms that support healthy federalism are generally better policy.

Debate continues over whether Head Start fulfills its intended purpose. Anecdotes from individuals positively affected by it often suggest it does, while a long-term study of the sustained impacts suggests benefits taper over time. Regardless, if the program continues, it should reflect federalism, benefiting from increased state and local authority and flexibility to better meet community needs.

You can read our public comment on regulations.gov or read it below.

Sutherland Institute’s public comment on Head Start proposed regulations

Sutherland Institute recognizes the prudence of placing public policy decision-making power as close as possible to the issue or those being impacted, especially in education. Federal involvement in education is most often less effective than local control, which is why we support the proposed rulemaking to rescind Parts 1301-1305 of the current Head Start Performance Standards and replace them with a streamlined 1301.

We believe the proposed rule advances these principles by removing requirements not required by statute, rescinding more than 1,400 prescriptive regulatory provisions, eliminating redundant regulatory language, and making space for state and local leadership.

More specifically, we believe communities benefit from giving states increased authority to determine group size and staff-to-child ratios, background checks, and transportation rather than having strict guidelines given by the federal government.

We also believe the proposal could strengthen parental and family authority by reducing prescriptive federal requirements governing curriculum implementation, parent committees, and family engagement procedures. At the same time, the proposed rule continues to require programs to recognize parents as children’s primary teachers and nurturers and establish goals and measurable outcomes incorporating evidence-based educational practices.

While the proposed rule does not change federal appropriation for Head Start, it would reduce the allowable administrative-cost cap from 15% to 5% of total approved program costs, which could shift resources to allow the program to serve more children. This is a prudent way to ensure federal dollars are spent for their intended purpose, to serve children and their families.

Sutherland supports these changes because it is a step toward moving education decision-making back to the states and families. We encourage future proposals that would reduce prescriptive federal requirements where flexibility and local judgment could be used. If this proposal is adopted, we also support research on the long-term outcomes of Head Start with these new features.