天美麻豆

Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education.

The Trump administration鈥檚 first four months have been rough on U.S. children. They certainly don鈥檛 deserve the punishment. From polarized and destabilizing politics to a global pandemic, increasing environmental pressures from climate change (and more), this cohort of children is coming of age in . 

And yet, we have reached what is perhaps a zenith in Trump-era politics of . The administration鈥檚 response to America鈥檚 youth crisis has been stunningly consistent: again and again, it has balanced occasional, to do something to address or on the one hand with real and stunningly on the other.聽

Perhaps the most direct and comprehensive assault on children is coming through the administration鈥檚 war on Head Start. , it鈥檚 the federal government鈥檚 largest-single investment in early learning, and it . Over its 60 years, Head Start has provided high-quality early learning as well as connecting around and their families to health and dental care, nutrition and housing assistance. 

During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump echoed the Heritage Foundation鈥檚 Project 2025 playbook in . This was hardly novel: though Head Start has long enjoyed bipartisan support, a subset of , and have spent decades attacking the program. 

While the administration鈥檚 chaotic first 100 days of the federal supporting health and well-being, its attacks on Head Start have been uniquely unpredictable. , as Elon Musk and his underlings at the Department of Government Efficiency hacked away at the federal civil service, Head Start providers across the country reported that they were unable to access their normally scheduled federal payments. This posed a particular challenge for Head Start center directors navigating the tight margins that define the early education market; hundreds of early care and learning centers warned that they were at risk of closure. 

Later in the spring, the administration abruptly that offer resources, support and oversight for Head Start providers. 

Several weeks ago, it appeared that the administration was preparing to act more decisively to abandon U.S. kids and families who depend on Head Start. On April 17, the indicating that the Trump administration would erase Head Start funding in its forthcoming budget proposal. Once this hit the news, Head Start supporters to save the program, and the administration . 

While it appears that the administration isn鈥檛 (yet) ready to deliver on this promised assault on children鈥檚 well-being, it鈥檚 worth reminding ourselves just what a stunning mistake it would be to reduce this particular investment in U.S. kids and families. 

Head Start has been studied many times, and the results are broadly positive. Research on it 鈥� and other early education programs 鈥� finds a relatively consistent pattern:

• Early education programs are reliably good for families and at preparing kids for kindergarten
  
• There’s some waning of positive academic impacts as kids go through K-12
  
• But the long-term impacts of early ed investments are generally positive.聽

First, at helping children from historically marginalized communities. Perhaps most importantly in the present political context, early education programs tend to promote better child development outcomes that create cost savings for school budgets. This mostly results from pre-K programs like the likelihood that children will later require special education services or need to repeat a grade. 

For instance, economist Tim Bartik notes that studies show possible of 鈥�23 to 86 percent.鈥�   Meanwhile, if a child repeats second (or any) grade, the public pays an additional year of per-pupil funding, and it also delays their entry into the workforce. As such, and keep students on track for college and career is a efficient . Finally, early education programs like Head Start are a boon for working families because get after having a child. 

Most encouraging of all, Head Start appears to create some long-term positive effects. In 2022, the children of Head Start participants garnered benefits like higher high school graduation and college attainment rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy and reduced rates of interaction with the criminal justice system.

For instance, often point to the federal , which gathered data on programs in the early 2000s. It largely found that Head Start had positive initial effects on children鈥檚 development, but that these effects 鈥渇aded out鈥� as kids worked their way into the K鈥�12 education system. But prompted a field of its findings in the 2010s, with concluding that it meaningfully Head Start鈥檚 to . 

This begs some critical questions about how the public should measure 鈥渟uccess鈥� for Head Start. Begin here: nearly every study of nearly every early education investment shows that these programs are effective at getting kids ready for K鈥�12 schooling. Put simply, pre-K appears to be good at getting kids 鈥減re鈥�-pared for K(indergarten). 

The trouble is, political rhetoric about early education investments has sometimes presented them as an invulnerable “” against all challenges that children may face later in life. This is the wrong way to think about whether early education investments 鈥渨ork,鈥� because it sets an impossible bar for success. Head Start 鈥� or pre-K programs more generally 鈥� cannot wholly blunt poverty, poor health or the impacts of low-quality K鈥�12 classrooms.

Indeed, even , like those in a recent study of Tennessee鈥檚 public pre-K program, indicate a positive path forward for public early education investments. Initial studies of the program garnered headlines. While Tennessee pre-K attendees were than their peers who did not attend the program, pre-K attendees scored worse on a range of metrics by the end of elementary school. 

This is concerning! But a pre-K鈥檚 benefits were 鈥渕ost likely to persist until 3rd grade among those students who went on to attend high quality schooling environments and were taught by highly effective teachers.鈥� That is, Tennessee鈥檚 pre-K programs succeeded at preparing children for kindergarten, and kids who went from those programs into higher-quality elementary classrooms continued to do better.聽

In other words, if Head Start and other pre-K programs are measured as a one-time public investment that will solve all systemic inequities in American schools and society, they will inevitably appear to fail. But if they are measured against their ability to prepare children for elementary schools, it is clear that they are a success. 

Furthermore, this fairer definition of Head Start鈥檚 effectiveness would allow policymakers to focus their attention on the necessary work of investing and improving K鈥�12 schools so that they bolster children and families beyond the early years. 

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how The 74鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.