House Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives

Thank you Chairman Miller, and good morning. We’re here today to consider the Providing Resources Early for Kids Act, known as the Pre-K Act.  This is a bill that – I believe – brings into sharp focus a fundamental philosophical difference here in this Committee.

Simply put, I disagree with the very premise of this bill.

I disagree that the federal government ought to be establishing a so-called universal pre-k program.

I disagree that the federal government should tell the states how to operate their own pre-k programs, when it is the states that have been leading the charge in this area.

I disagree that we should be setting up a new early childhood education bureaucracy at the U.S. Department of Education, discarding the infrastructure and experience at the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers a number of early childhood education and care programs, including Child Care and Development Block Grants and Head Start.

And the Head Start program is something that we really ought to be talking about here this morning.  That program is proof positive that we can agree on this issue of early childhood education.

The Head Start program has been providing pre-kindergarten services to disadvantaged children since 1965.  Just last year, we passed a bipartisan Head Start reform bill to make that program stronger.

That’s why I’m so dismayed that we’re here today, discarding the progress we have made in favor of a parallel new program that fails to target the children who need help the most.

We already have a federal early childhood program to serve disadvantaged children.  It is located at the Department of Health and Human Services because the program’s charge is to provide comprehensive services to these children, from health and developmental services to the educational foundation needed for school success.

I know members of the majority support the Head Start program.  I worked with them just a few short months ago to ensure that program would serve greater numbers of disadvantaged children, and provide higher quality educational services to help close the school readiness gap.

That’s why I’m so puzzled by this bill before us.  If we support the Head Start program, and we believe it should serve as many disadvantaged children as possible, what is the purpose of the bill before us?

Are we creating one system for low-income children and another system for everyone else?  With this new program at the Department of Education, are we saying that non-Head Start children should have a more academic focus in their pre-k programs?  If so, won’t that exacerbate the school readiness gap we’re trying to erase?

I’d also like to point out that I’m not a critic of state-run early childhood programs.  To the contrary, members on our side of the aisle even explored the idea of encouraging greater coordination between Head Start and state-run pre-k programs in an effort to ensure a more seamless early learning system and erase that readiness gap.  According to the National Institute for Early Education Research, in 2007, states reported spending more than $3.7 billion on state-funded preschool education programs, an all-time high.  With this impressive state-based effort underway, I continue to believe that more coordination between Head Start and state-based programs would be a good idea.

I would simply remind those on the other side of the aisle who were here in 2003 that every one of you strenuously opposed that idea.  In fact, at that time you were harshly critical of state-run programs.  So what has changed?

I, for one, still believe states are making promising strides in the area of early childhood education.  And they’re doing so without the federal government telling them how to run their programs, or who to serve.

State-funded preschool programs differ significantly across the country, and all will be negatively impacted by the teacher, academic year, and full-day service requirements in the bill.  For example, 27 states require all of their teachers in preschool programs to have a BA, but 22, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and Massachusetts, do not.  Is it reasonable to expect every single state to achieve the lofty BA requirement for all teachers within just five years?  Twenty-seven states have income requirements for the children that they serve through their programs.  Is it wise for the federal government to supplement funding without supporting this priority?  This bill ignores the decisions made at the local level, jeopardizes the future of these innovative programs, and is another example of a Washington-knows-best mentality.

The simple fact is, the federal government has an important role to play in early childhood education.  That role is serving disadvantaged children through the Head Start program, truly giving them a head start because they are far more likely to have fallen behind, even before they enroll in school.

If the majority is interested in taking up our pilot proposal from 2003 to coordinate state-run programs with Head Start, then I’d be willing to listen.  But if we’re going to vote on a bill that provides federal funds and federal mandates for state-run programs while keeping Head Start children separate, I simply cannot support it.  Thank you, and I yield back.

# # #