What Does Project 2025 Say about Head Start?

First, we want to say that The Gravely Group is a non-partisan entity. We do not endorse any political party or candidate. However, when a political party or candidate proposes sweeping changes to Head Start, we want to make sure our readers are educated on what that proposal is. We encourage everyone to educate themselves on the policy positions of each candidate and make the choice that they feel is right.  And we encourage every eligible citizen to VOTE in every election.

There’s been a lot of news coverage about Project 2025 over the last few weeks, and we wanted to look a little more closely at it to see what it says about Head Start. Project 2025 is the latest in a series of books dating back to 1981 from conservative think-tank, The Heritage Foundation, known as the Mandate for Leadership. For the past 50 years, The Heritage Foundation has been one of the leading voices of the conservative movement, and has historically been ranked among the most influential public policy organizations in the United States (see Wikipedia.)

The 900-page Project 2025 is widely considered to be the blueprint for the next Republican presidency, with many of its authors former Trump-appointees.  While the authors say their plan is not endorsed by any particular candidate, and former President Trump has tried to distance himself from it, the intent is clear.

“This is an agenda prepared by and for conservatives who will be ready on Day One of the next Administration to save our country,” they write in the introduction.

The document is indeed comprehensive, radically reshaping the executive branch of the federal government and how it operates. It covers most major federal departments, from The Department of Education to The Department of Health and Human Services, the latter of which administers the Head Start program.

We feel that every American should be educated on this policy document. Even if it’s merely aspirational, it is impossible to know which parts will be prioritized in the event of a second Trump term.

That chapter on The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the section that makes recommendations regarding Head Start. The section was written by former Trump-appointee Roger Severino, who worked at HHS from 2017-2021. In it, he recommends eliminating the Head Start program completely. Instead of summarizing what the document says, we’ll quote it verbatim:

Eliminate the Head Start program. Head Start, originally established and funded to support low-income families, is fraught with scandal and abuse. With a budget of more than $11 billion, the program should function to protect and educate minors. Sadly, it has done exactly the opposite. In fact, “approximately 1 in 4 grant recipients had incidents in which children were abused, left unsupervised, or released to an unauthorized person between October 2015 and May 2020.” Research has demonstrated that federal Head Start centers, which provide preschool care to children from low-income families, have little or no long-term academic value for children. Given its unaddressed crisis of rampant abuse and lack of positive outcomes, this program should be eliminated along with the entire OHS. At the very least, the program’s COVID-19 vaccine and mask requirements should be rescinded.

In the context of a 900+ page book, the section on Head Start is very short. But it’s implications are huge. Every year, Head Start serves more than 800,000 low-income children and families with services that span from pregnancy through preschool.  And that’s just with the funding allotted.  With more funding, many more eligible families could be served.

We don’t need to sell our audience on Head Start. If you’re reading this blog, you’re likely already a leader in Head Start. However, I do want to call out two specific points that Severino is making.

First, is this notion that Head Start is fraught with scandal and abuse. Here, Severino is referring to the 2022 report from HHS’s internal Inspector General that showed safety concerns in many Head Start grantees over a 5 year period.  The irony here is that Severino cites a study paid for and commissioned by HHS of its own program in order to improve it. And once the Office of Head Start saw the results, they responded in a big way, vowing to re-train all designees and reiterating its commitment to safety.

“[Safety] is foundational to Head Start,” the OHS Acting Director wrote at the time. “OHS has a zero tolerance policy for any situation that harms or endangers a child and for lack of reporting those incidents to OHS.”

Second, is the idea that Head Start has little or no long-term academic value for children.  Here, Severino is referring to the Head Start Impact Study, a study mandated by Congress during the 1998 reauthorization of Head Start funding.  When the findings were finally released in 2010, with a followup in 2012, Head Start critics were quick to jump on the findings showing that cognitive gains of Head Start children were short-lived, and that non-Head Start children quickly closed the gap once they started school.

But we know better. Head Start isn’t just about cognitive gains. That’s only one aspect.  The thing about Head Start is that its benefits are often soft benefits and hard to measure. Studies like this don’t measure the time a Head Start staff member helped a parent get new clothes for their job interview.  Or when a Home Visitor helped educate a dad on safe sleep practices.

It’s clear throughout this document, particularly when they’re talking about cutting programs for kids, is that the authors think that poor families are getting things they don’t deserve. Look no further than their recommendation to drastically reduce federal support for free school lunch programs. Even if Head Start doesn’t have long-lasting cognitive benefits, it’s still a worthwhile, because early childhood education is worthwhile.

It’s a tired trope, honestly. From welfare queens to food stamp steak and lobster, Project 2025 is really the same old racist and sexist rhetoric from the past 50 years.  What makes this time different is their dedication to make it happen in ways we haven’t seen before.  By deconstructing the executive branch of government and completely remaking it in their own image, combined with a sympathetic court and impotent legislature, Project 2025 is one of the most important policy documents of this election cycle, or any election cycle. And we should all be educated on what it says.

Tags: project 2025