The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

Of all the Great Society programs begun by Lyndon Johnson, Head Start seemed the most ennobling. What could be worthier than tending to the education and health of America's preschoolers? Over time, the program has achieved wide popularity, and the pledge to "fully fund" it has become a kind of mantra among politicians across the ideological spectrum. Yet full funding has remained a dream -- until now. "We all know Head Start . . . is a success story," Bill Clinton told Congress last month. "We all know that it saves money, ((and)) under ((my)) plan every eligible child will be able to get a head start. This is not just the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. For every dollar we invest today, we'll save three tomorrow."

Are any of these claims true? In a time of fiscal crisis (when the President says government must "demonstrate that we can be as frugal as any household"), the answers had better be clear, for Clinton has proposed a $10 billion increase in Head Start's budget authority over four years, the single largest requested rise for any government program and one that accounts for about 10% of all the new "investment" spending Clinton plans during his term.

Sadly, to borrow the words that once appeared on report cards, new studies confirm that Head Start "does not live up to potential." The well-known formula cited by Clinton ("One dollar spent now saves three later") reflects the success of one non-Head Start project at the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in the 1960s. The latest investigation of Head Start itself, by the Health and Human Services Department, calls many of the approximately 1,300 Head Start programs that currently serve about 700,000 children poorly run and unsuccessful at providing youngsters with even basic care. Yale Professor Edward Zigler, an architect of the original program, estimates that "at best" only 40% of Head Start centers are "high quality. Closing down 30% of them," he adds, "would be no great loss."

What's gone wrong? "Lots," says Zigler. With 47% of Head Start instructors earning only about $10,000 a year, attracting good teachers is a serious obstacle. Other problems involve lack of training, substandard facilities and short hours; most programs operate half days or less. More important, since most Head Start programs serve only four-year-olds for a single year, the positive effects fade away by the first grade. Most experts suggest a two-year program that begins at age three, with follow-up instruction that lasts through the fourth grade. A plan worth its promise would not only mandate two years of Head Start for those most in need but also award schoolchildren in the lower grades a larger chunk of the $6 billion annually authorized under Chapter 1, the nation's primary source of federal funds for education. Those dollars are currently spread thinly in a pork-barrel scheme that reaches 90% of all congressional districts -- the price for the political support required to keep Chapter 1 alive. "Unless you conceive of Head Start and Chapter 1 together and target the money at the most disadvantaged," says Zigler, "we'll never have the good effects we know we can have if it's done right. The President should favor that if he's serious about the word investment."

Where does Clinton come down on these questions -- the President who has said, "Education is the issue I know most and care most about"? The man primarily responsible for crafting a solution that builds on the demonstrated success of the best Head Start projects is White House domestic policy aide William Galston. "I'm well aware of the quality-vs.-coverage debates," says Galston, "of the need to extend hours and concentrate funds, and I know all about the 'fade-out' phenomenon. On my second day on the job I sent out an all-points bulletin to the academic community, and I have a stack of reports on my desk about 18 inches high, most of which I've read. There's a general consensus that pouring old wine into the same bottles is the wrong way to go. I hope we'll get all the interested parties around the same table to generate an evidence-based meeting of the minds, and I'm sure that's what the President will demand." Then why, before the facts are known, has Clinton asked for such a whopping increase in Head Start funds -- and an as yet unspecified bump in Chapter 1 money as well? "Think of it as a promissory note," says Galston. "The President has made a commitment. The question now is how to redeem it in the best possible way." Galston is right, of course, and so is Clinton when he says, "A solid, comprehensive ((education)) program could do about as much to break the cycle and the mentality of dependence and poverty . . . as anything else we could do."

George Bush never faced these problems squarely, although his words always sounded sweet. In seeking to give content to his rhetoric, Clinton is on the right track. What's left for the President now is to bring the "rigor" he has sworn to apply to "everything I do" to programs of great potential but uneven results; what's left, to use Clinton's words, is to finally "do it smart."