Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
Status of Efforts to Increase 
the Qualifications of 
Head Start Teachers 
Inspector General 
JANUARY 2004 
OEI-07-01-00560  O I G
FFICE OF  NSPECTOR  ENERAL

http://www.oig.hhs.gov/ 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as amended 
by Public Law 100-504, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs.  This 
statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and inspections 
conducted by the following operating components: 
Office of Audit Services 
The OIG's Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by conducting 
audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others.  Audits examine the 
performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective 
responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations in 
order to reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout the 
Department. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The OIG's Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and program 
evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the 
public.  The findings and recommendations contained in the inspections reports generate rapid, accurate, 
and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, and effectiveness of departmental programs. 
Office of Investigations 
The OIG's Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of 
allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of unjust enrichment by 
providers.  The investigative efforts of OI lead to criminal convictions, administrative sanctions, or civil 
monetary penalties.  The OI also oversees State Medicaid fraud control units which investigate and 
prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 
Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 
The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to OIG, rendering 
advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all legal support in OIGs internal 
operations.  The OCIG imposes program exclusions and civil monetary penalties on health care providers 
and litigates those actions within the Department.  The OCIG also represents OIG in the global settlement 
of cases arising under the Civil False Claims Act, develops and monitors corporate integrity agreements, 
develops model compliance plans, renders advisory opinions on OIG sanctions to the health care 
community, and issues fraud alerts and other industry guidance.  E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y  
OBJECTIVE 
To assess factors contributing to Head Starts progress and programs experiences in 
increasing teachers qualifications. 
BACKGROUND 
With the passage of the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and

Educational Services (COATS) Act (P.L. 105-285) in 1998, Congress reauthorized 

Head Start through fiscal year (FY) 2003 and amended the Head Start Act.  The amendments

required more specific education performance standards and increased teacher qualifications. 

The COATS Act specifically mandates that by September 30, 2003, at least 50 percent of

Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs must have an associate,

baccalaureate, or advanced degree in early childhood education; or a degree in a field related

to early childhood education, with experience teaching preschool children. According to the

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Head Start met this requirement with 51

percent of teachers nationwide holding appropriate degrees in FY 2002.

In addition, to the COATS Act, ACF established a self-imposed staffing goal for Head Start

programs  that each program should strive to achieve 50 percent degreed teaching staff by the

end of FY 2003. Teaching staff is defined as those staff members who are responsible for

leading a classroom of children in daily activities.

A source of data we used in our analysis was ACFs Program Information Report (PIR). PIR

is the only comprehensive national source of data available concerning the staffing levels and

qualifications of Head Start teaching staff. We supported the PIR analysis with data collected

from a random sample of 300 Head Start program directors and a separate stratified cluster

sample of 444 current Head Start teachers. We limited our interviews to Head Start programs

(excluding American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start programs).  This

limitation allowed us to make more uniform comparisons across programs.

FINDINGS 
Several Factors Have Contributed to Head Starts Progress in Increasing 
Teachers Qualifications 
Head Start has made significant progress in increasing the qualifications of teachers.  Directors 
of Head Start programs report hiring more degreed teachers to improve their teachers 
qualifications. Directors and teachers also reported that their program supports current, 
nondegreed teaching staff in their pursuit of degrees.  In addition, programs 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  i  OEI-07-01-00560  reported using Quality Improvement funds to retain teachers.  Finally, turnover rates for Head 
Start teachers remain low, below that for public schools and non-teaching professionals. 
Data Reflect That Disparities Exist in the Percentage of Degreed Teachers 
Although we recognize that Head Start is not a regionally or State-administered program, we 
note that specific regions, States, and program types have a lower overall percentage of 
degreed teachers.  The lack of degreed teaching staff is particularly acute in 15, mostly 
southern, States.  Additionally, American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head 
Start programs are well below the 50 percent program goal.  We also analyzed program 
performance among programs within the same county, since programs in the same county are 
likely to face similar circumstances and staffing challenges.  We identified a total of 72 counties 
that had at least 1 program meeting ACFs self-imposed staffing goal and 1 program not 
meeting the goal. 
Directors attitudes regarding the degreed teaching staff requirement may influence the 
percentage of degreed teaching staff in their programs. Directors we interviewed who had a 
positive attitude concerning the value of degreed teaching staff in Head Start also had a higher 
percentage of degreed teaching staff in their own programs. 
RECOMMENDATION 
Provide Targeted Assistance to Programs Who Have Not Met ACFs Self-Imposed 
Staffing Goal 
ACF, in conjunction with their regional offices, needs to target assistance to those programs 
where the level of degreed teaching staff is below 50 percent. The first priority should be to 
assist programs in those regions and States that are having the most difficulty. Special attention 
also must be focused on American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start 
programs, most of which were well below ACFs self-imposed goal for degreed teaching staff. 
AGENCY COMMENTS 
In its written response to the report, ACF concurred with our recommendation to provide 
targeted assistance to programs which had not met ACFs self-imposed staffing goal of 50 
percent degreed teachers with a degree in early childhood education or a degree in a field 
related to early childhood education in each program by September 30, 2003. It will 
prioritize these efforts in Head Start programs in Regions 4 and 6, States that are below 50 
percent, as well as American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start 
programs. 
We have made technical revisions to the report based on ACFs comments.  The full text of 
ACFs comments is contained in Appendix D. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  ii  OEI-07-01-00560  T A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T S  
PAGE 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... i

INTRODUCTION .............................................................1

FINDINGS  ..................................................................5

Several Factors Have Contributed to Head Starts Progress in Increasing Teachers

Qualifications  ...........................................................5

Data Reflect that Disparities Exist in the Percentage of Degreed Teachers  ............... 7

RECOMMENDATION  ....................................................... 11

AGENCY COMMENTS  ...................................................... 11

APPENDICES 
A: Methodology - Data Collection and Analysis .................................12

B:  Confidence Intervals - Reported Teacher Data  ...............................15

C: 	Traditional Head Start Programs Reported Progress in Achieving At Least

50 Percent Degreed Teaching Staff for Head Start Enrollment Year

2001 - by State ......................................................16

D: Agency Comments  ....................................................19

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................... 22
 I N T R O D U C T I O N  
OBJECTIVE 
To assess factors contributing to Head Starts progress and programs experiences in 
improving teachers qualifications. 
BACKGROUND 
With the passage of the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and

Educational Services (COATS) Act (P.L. 105-285) in 1998, Congress reauthorized 

Head Start through fiscal year (FY) 2003 and amended the Head Start Act.  The amendments

required more specific education performance standards and increased teacher qualifications. 

The Act sought to:

  Increase the number of degreed teachers and teaching staff seeking degrees. 
	 Address issues that could affect teachers recruitment and retention, such as salaries 
and benefits. 
  Improve the school readiness of Head Start children. 
	 Foster collaboration between the Head Start program and other State and local 
entities involved in child care and/or programs for low income children and their 
families. 
The COATS Act specifically mandates that, by September 30, 2003, at least 50 percent of 
Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs1 must have an associate, 
baccalaureate, or an advanced degree in early childhood education; or a degree in a field 
related to early childhood education, with experience teaching preschool children.2 According 
to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Head Start met this requirement with 51 
percent of teachers holding appropriate degrees in enrollment 2002. 
The COATS Act provided only part of the motivation related to the increase in teachers 
qualifications. To further strengthen the educational achievement of Head Start teachers, ACF 
notified each program via Program Instruction that, Although the statutory mandate is that 
50 percent of Head Start teachers nationally have degrees, we expect that all 
1	
Head Start programs are either center-based (services are provided at a facility) or home-based (services 
are provided at an individuals home). 
2	
Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, 
(P.L. 105-285), Sec. 115 [amended Sec. 648A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9843a)]. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  1  OEI-07-01-00560  programs will strive to achieve at least this level by the end of FY 2003.3 An official with

ACFs Head Start Bureau acknowledged that it is unlikely that each program will

meet the goal by the end of FY 2003, but Head Start expects the programs to do their best.4

Presidential Initiative for Early Childhood Education 
The President has firmly supported the need for increased teacher qualifications. In his 2002 
State of the Union Address, he stated, 
We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with 
improved Head Start and early childhood development programs.  We 
must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major 
recruiting drive with a great goal for America:  a quality teacher in every 
classroom. 
In this address, the President proposed the early childhood initiative - Good Start, 
Grow Smart - to help States and local communities strengthen early learning for young 
children. 
Concerns of Stakeholders and Advocacy Groups 
We held discussions with key internal stakeholders and external advocacy groups (e.g., ACF 
Head Start Bureau, National Head Start Association, National Association for the Education of 
Young Children).  Each strongly supported having more highly educated and better paid 
teachers. Yet they described what they believed were potential unintended consequences of 
the COATS Act.  These concerns included the following: 
	 Head Start programs may need to hire outside the local community to find degreed 
teachers, with such outsiders lacking an understanding and appreciation of the local 
community and diminishing the bond between the program and the community it serves. 
	 Child Development Associate (CDA) staff  especially those with the knowledge of 
how to navigate the system  may be pushed out because of the need to hire 
degreed teachers. (CDA staff are those nondegreed staff who have a child 
development associate credential appropriate to the ages of the children in the program 
they work for, or those nondegreed staff who have a State-awarded certificate for 
preschool teachers that meets or exceeds the requirements of the CDA). 
	 Head Start pays for teachers to earn degrees, and those teachers then leave for higher 
paying positions in school districts or outside the teaching field. 
  Training opportunities in early childhood education, especially in rural areas, may 
3	
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Program Instruction: ACYF-PI-HS-00-03, 
December 22, 2000, p. 5. 
4 
Discussion with an official of ACF, Head Start Bureau, June 12, 2002. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  2  OEI-07-01-00560  be remote or unavailable, which would hinder programs progress in attaining the 50 
percent staffing goal for degreed teachers. 
We explored these issues throughout the course of our study. 
METHODOLOGY 
Since 1987, ACF has used the Program Information Report (PIR) to capture information about Head 
Start programs.  PIR is the only comprehensive national source of data available concerning the staffing 
levels and qualifications of Head Start teaching staff.  (Teaching staff is defined as those staff members 
who are responsible for leading a classroom of children in daily activities.)  This annual report collects 
program level data describing the children and families enrolled and the services provided. Over the 
past several years, the report has been modified to collect additional information, including teachers 
qualifications, new hires, and staff turnover. To assess Head Starts progress in increasing teachers 
qualifications, we used the PIR.  We supplemented this data with information collected from a simple 
random sample of program directors and a random stratified cluster sample of Head Start teachers. 
We conducted a trend analysis of the PIR data for all Head Start programs for the 5 enrollment years 
ending in 1997 through 2001.5 
We selected a simple random sample of 300 Head Start program directors, based on programs who 
submitted PIR data for Head Start enrollment year 2001.  We excluded five programs after learning 
that the programs were solely home-based or were no longer active.  We received responses from 
263 directors, for an overall response rate of 89 percent (263/295).  However, the response rate for 
individual questions varied. We received responses from at least 205 directors for the questions we 
analyzed. 
From a stratified cluster sample of 444 current and 176 former teachers, we gathered information 
concerning their goals for obtaining degrees (if they did not have one), their experiences obtaining 
degrees, the challenges they faced, the support received from the Head Start program, and their 
motivations for remaining with or leaving the program. The overall response rate for the former 
teachers was only 25 percent, which prevented meaningful statistical analysis.  Therefore, we dropped 
this group from our sample population. The response rate for current teachers was 94 percent 
(418/444). 
Finally, we reviewed the laws, regulations, and agency policies related to the increase of Head Start 
teacher qualifications. Further details concerning the methods used for this inspection are presented in 
Appendix A. 
5	
The enrollment year is defined by ACF as the period of time, not to exceed 12 months, during which a 
Head Start Program provides center or home-based services to a group of children and their families, PIR 
Users Guide, April 2002, p. 19.  The enrollment year 2001 covers the period September 2000 through June 
2001 and was the latest complete year available at the time of our review. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  3  OEI-07-01-00560  Limitations 
The data in this report concerning the qualifications of Head Start teaching staff are based on 
the final PIR data reported to ACF by Head Start programs for enrollment year ending in 
2001. We encountered challenges working with these data both in terms of how the data were 
collected year-to-year, and how the programs completed the PIR.  An example of the 
problems we encountered was that response categories were not mutually exclusive, meaning 
that some teachers could have been counted more than once. Therefore, comparing the number 
of teachers in relation to degrees could not guarantee accuracy. Also, due to the unique nature 
of migrant programs and the clients they serve, information does not always fit into the 
reporting structure of PIR data elements. However, given that the PIR is the only 
comprehensive national source of data regarding Head Start teachers qualifications, and that 
the responses we received from Head Start program directors and teachers did not contradict 
the PIR data, our findings reflect PIR data despite its potential problems. 
We also limited our interviews to traditional Head Start programs (excluding American Indian 
and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start programs).  This limitation allowed us to 
make consistent comparisons across programs. 
Inspection Standards 
We conducted this inspection in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 
issued by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  4  OEI-07-01-00560  F I N D I N G S  
According to ACF, 51 percent of Head Start teachers held appropriate degrees in enrollment 
year 2002, effectively meeting the COATS Act mandate.  This percentage is an improvement 
over the 34 percent of teachers who held appropriate degrees in 1997, the year before the 
passage of the COATS Act. Eighty-six percent (184/213) of the responding directors stated 
that having more degreed teaching staff has enhanced their programs. Ninety-two percent of 
degreed teachers and 83 percent of Child Development Associates (CDAs) agreed. As one 
CDA stated, I always knew what to do as a teacher, but now I understand the theory of why I 
do it. 
Several Factors Have Contributed to Head Starts Progress in 
Increasing Teachers Qualifications 
Directors Hired Degreed Teachers to Fill Vacancies 
Directors frequently hired degreed teachers to fill vacancies.  From September 1998, through 
June 2001, directors reported hiring 1,374 degreed teachers and only 433 CDAs.  This trend is 
supported by our examination of the national PIR data for all Head Start programs for 
enrollment years 1997 through 2001, which showed that the proportion of CDAs declined by 
15 percentage points, while the proportion of degreed teachers increased by 11 percentage 
points (Table 1). Directors noted that hiring a degreed teacher is easier, takes less time, and 
costs less than training nondegreed staff. 
Table 1 
National Summary of all Head Start Programs 1997 through 20011 
Percent of Increase of Teachers (Degreed and CDA) 
by Head Start Enrollment Year 
Source: Program Information Report Data 
Total  Percent 
Enrollment  Total  Total  Degreed  Degreed  Total 
Year  Programs2  Teachers  Teachers  Teachers 3  CDAs  Percent CDAs3 
1997  1,889  35,709  12,167  34.1%  19,964  55.9% 
1998  2,020  39,2494  12,585  32.1%  21,787  55.5% 
1999  2,107  42,471  15,753  37.1%  20,695  48.7% 
2000  2,210  43,364  17,549  40.5%  20,030  46.2% 
2001  2,299  47,161  21,252  45.1%  19,299  40.9% 
1  At the time of our review, PIR data for enrollment year 2001 were the latest complete year available. PIR data for 
enrollment year 2002, which indicate that 51 percent of teachers held appropriate degrees, became available after 
completion of our field work. 
2  The numbers and percentages shown above are for those programs that are required to report teaching staff and 
had at least one teacher. 
3  The sum of the percent of degreed teachers and the percent of CDAs does not equal 100 percent. Some CDAs 
were in training at the time the PIR was submitted, or their educational qualifications were not specified. 
4  In 1998, family childcare providers were included in the total teacher count of the Head Start program. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  5  OEI-07-01-00560  Eighty-six percent of the responding directors (205/239) stated that they primarily hire from 
within their local community, and 70 percent of these directors (143/205) were able to obtain 
the required number of degreed teachers. Of the directors who noted challenges in recruiting 
from within the local community, none reported any ill effect on their program from hiring 
outsiders.  Rather, we were told that hiring teachers from outside the community improved the 
quality of the program and brought in different perspectives and new ideas. 
Programs Were Supporting Staff Efforts to Obtain Degrees 
Teachers reported that programs were providing assistance to help them obtain their degrees. 
Seventy-seven percent of teachers holding CDAs were working toward their degree at the time 
of this review.6 Of these, 87 percent indicated that Head Start had provided assistance to them 
in the form of time off to attend classes, assistance with payment for books and tuition, and/or 
helping with transportation (e.g., payment of mileage). Rather than getting pushed out, these 
CDAs will further increase the percentage of teachers with degrees as they complete their 
educations. 
Quality Improvement (QI) Funds Were Instrumental in Retaining Teachers 
Specific QI funding is available for Head Start programs to increase staff qualifications and 
retain experienced staff.  In FY 2001, programs received QI funding of $355.5 million.7 
Programs must use at least 50 percent of QI funds to improve the compensation (including 
benefits) of classroom teachers and other staff, unless the program is unable to do so (e.g., 
salaries are tied to the local school district, and the program cannot exceed those salaries). 
Directors stated QI funds are instrumental in the retention of teaching staff and the overall 
improvement of the program. They cited using QI funds to enhance salaries, increase staff, 
improve benefits, and provide resources for teaching staff to obtain college degrees. Seventy-
three percent (172/235) of the responding directors reported using 50 percent or more of their 
QI funding to enhance salaries and/or benefits. The remaining 27 percent (63/235) also used 
this funding for salary and/or benefits; however, for reasons similar to that described above, the 
program either could not use the full 50 percent to increase salaries and benefits, or the 
responding agencies did not always know exactly how the parent agency spent the QI funds. 
Teacher Turnover Rates Were Low 
Our analysis of the PIR data for all Head Start programs for enrollment years 
1997 through 2001 found the teacher turnover rate did not substantially change in those 
6	
Percentages cited for degreed teacher and CDA responses were based on weighted responses 
(Appendix B). 
7 
ACF, Head Start Bureau, July 9, 2002. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  6  OEI-07-01-00560  years, remaining at approximately 7 percent.8 In comparison, the turnover rate in public 
schools was approximately 13 percent, and the turnover rate for non-teaching professionals 
was 11 percent.9 As such, concerns about teachers leaving the Head Start program may be 
less of an issue than anticipated. 
Stakeholders believe salaries to be a key factor in teacher turnover, especially as teachers earn 
degrees. However, of those teachers who reported that they may leave within the next 3 years, 
only 6 percent of degreed teachers and 5 percent of CDAs stated that salary would be a factor 
in such a decision. Overall, 83 percent of degreed teachers and 89 percent of CDAs stated 
they planned to remain with Head Start for the next 3 years. Factors influencing teachers 
decisions to remain with Head Start are listed in Appendix B. 
Data Reflect That Disparities Exist in the Percentage of 
Degreed Teachers 
In addition to the COATS Act, ACF further strengthened the educational requirement for Head 
Start programs through its self-imposed initiative that all programs would strive to achieve at 
least 50 percent degreed teachers by the end of FY 2003. 
Specific Regions, States, and Program Types Attained Lower Overall Percentages 
of Degreed Teachers 
We recognize that Head Start is not a regionally or State-administered program. Nonetheless, 
for the purposes of assessing programs success in increasing the qualifications of teachers, we 
grouped programs based on ACF regional offices jurisdiction, by States, and by type of 
program (i.e., traditional Head Start, American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early 
Head Start). Table 2 on the following page contains regional/program-type breakdowns. The 
table shows that Regions 4 and 6 have a majority of those programs that fall short of ACFs 
self-imposed goal.  Although Region 7 had a majority of programs meeting ACFs goal, the 
overall percentage of teachers with degrees is below 50 percent. In addition, American Indian 
and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start programs are well below 50 percent both in 
terms of individual programs and teachers overall.  Appendix C lists the ACF regional office 
responsible for Head Start programs in each State. 
8	
ACF, PIR reports for Head Start enrollment years 1997 through 2001. Comparison of teachers hired due 
to staff turnover to total teacher staff. 
9	
Viadero, Debra (April 10, 2002). Researcher Skewers Explanations Behind Teacher Shortage. Education 
Week on the Web. Retrieved July 10, 2002 from 
http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=30aera.h21&keywords=Teacher%20Shortage 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  7  OEI-07-01-00560  Table 2 
Head Start Enrollment Year 2001 
Progress of Programs in Achieving ACFs Staffing Goal for Degreed Teachers 
= Regions in Which the Majority of Programs Have Not Met ACFs Goal
Source: Program Information Report Data 
Number of 
Total  Programs Not Total  Percentage of
Number of  Meeting Percentage of Programs Number of  Teachers 
Programs ACFs Goal  That Have Not Achieved  Teachers  In the Region
In the  for Degreed ACFs Goal  In the  with 
Region  Region1  Staffing  for Degreed Staffing  Region  Degrees2 
1 88  22  25.0%  1,690  59.1% 
2 237  38  16.0%  4,449  70.4% 
3 176  50  28.4%  3,080  65.1% 
4 274  199  72.6%  8,105  34.2% 
5 329  102  31.0%  5,989  57.8% 
6 201  133  66.2%  6,078  32.3% 
7 85  39  45.9%  1,571  43.3% 
8 86  42  48.8%  1,086  52.9% 
9 168  81  48.2%  5,597  49.7% 
10 62  29  46.8%  1,395  52.8% 
Subtotal:  1,706  735  43.1%  39,040 
American 
Indian and 
Alaska Native  130  93  71.5%  1,105  23.4% 
Migrant  63  48  76.2%  3,097  20.3% 
Early Head
Start  400  224  56.0%  3,919  32.0% 
Nationwide:  2,299  1,100  47.8%  47,161  45.1% 
1  American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start programs have been excluded from the regions
total and identified separately.
2  The numbers and percentages shown above are for those programs that are required to report teaching staff and 
had at least one teacher. 
The lack of degreed teaching staff is particularly acute in 15, mostly southern, States (see the 
map on the following page).  These States had total degreed teaching staff of less than 
40 percent in Head Start during enrollment year 2001.  In contrast, programs in 14 States and 
the District of Columbia achieved rates of 70 percent or more degreed teaching staff.  Details 
concerning Head Start programs reported progress in achieving ACFs goal (by State) for 
enrollment year 2001 can be found in Appendix C. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  8  OEI-07-01-00560  Percentage of Head Start Programs Not Meeting ACFs Self-Imposed
 Staffing Goal - By State
Note: Territories are Not Displayed on Map
National Total of Programs Not Meeting ACFs Goal = 47.8% Percent
Source:  ACF Program Information Report - Head Start Enrollment Year 2001
PIR Data Reflect that the Percentage of Degreed Teachers Varied Among
Programs Within Same County
Although it is easy to generalize about the successes and failures in increasing teacher
qualifications based on the Nation, region, or State, our analysis suggests it is important not to
lose sight of individual programs.  We compared Head Start programs within the same counties
to explore the progress of individual programs facing similar circumstances (e.g., percent
urban/rural population, educational opportunities, competition for potential employees).  We
identified a total of 72 counties that had at least 1 program meeting ACFs self-imposed staffing
goal and 1 program not meeting the goal.  The number of programs and the percentage of
degreed teachers within these counties varied greatly, as demonstrated in the following
example.  One New England county has a total of seven Head Start programs.  Teaching staff
(degreed and CDA) in these programs range from 8 teachers to more than 40.  The
percentages of degreed teaching staff in these programs are as follows:
 One program has 88 percent.
 Three programs range from 60 to 67 percent.
 One program has 50 percent.
 One program has 48 percent.
 One program has 13 percent.
 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers 9 OEI-07-01-00560 The above illustration suggests that although some programs may have experienced barriers to 
increasing the percentage of degreed teachers, other programs in the same local areas 
overcame these barriers. 
The Directors Attitude May Influence Percentage of Degreed Teaching Staff 
We compared directors interview responses regarding the degreed teaching staff requirement 
to the PIR data.  Those directors who had a positive attitude concerning the value of degreed 
teaching staff in Head Start had a higher percentage of degreed teaching staff in their own 
programs.10 Correspondingly, directors who responded that this requirement was detrimental 
to Head Start had lower percentages of degreed teaching staff.11 
One director who was not pushing to meet ACFs self-imposed staffing goal gave the following 
statement about his programs efforts to increase the proportion of degreed teaching staff: 
Even if I dont get 50 percent, Head Start programs that exceed the 50 percent level will bring 
up those programs that are below 50 percent. 
10 
This is statistically significant with a p-Value of <0.05 at the 95 percent confidence level. 
11 
This is statistically significant with a p-Value of <0.03 at the 95 percent confidence level. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  10  OEI-07-01-00560  R E C O M M E N D A T I O N  
Overall, there was an increase in the number of Head Start teachers with degrees and in the 
number of programs that had met ACFs self-imposed staffing goal in the enrollment years that 
we studied. Directors and teachers believed that the increase in teaching staff qualifications had 
strengthened the program. However, some programs had limited or no success in increasing 
the number of degreed teaching staff. Given the need to provide children with the best Head 
Start possible, it is important that ACF ensure that all programs are making positive progress 
in their efforts to increase the number of degreed teaching staff.  To this end, we make the 
following recommendation to ACF. 
Provide Targeted Assistance to Programs that Have Not Met 
ACFs Self-Imposed Staffing Goal 
ACF, in conjunction with its regional offices, needs to target assistance to those programs 
where the level of degreed teaching staff is below 50 percent. The first priority should be to 
assist programs in those regions and States that are having the most difficulty. Special attention 
also must be focused on American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start 
programs, most of which are well below ACFs self-imposed staffing goal. 
AGENCY COMMENTS 
In its written response to the report, ACF concurred with our recommendation to provide 
targeted assistance to programs which had not met ACFs self-imposed staffing goal of 50 
percent degreed teachers with a degree in early childhood education or a degree in a field 
related to early childhood education in each program by September 30, 2003. It will 
prioritize these efforts in Head Start programs in Regions 4 and 6, States that are below 50 
percent, as well as American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start 
programs. 
We have made technical revisions to the report based on ACFs comments.  The full text of 
ACFs comments is contained in Appendix D. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  11  OEI-07-01-00560  APPENDIX A 
Methodology

Data Collection and Analysis

Use of ACF Program Information Report (PIR) Data 
We obtained final PIR data from ACF for all Head Start programs for enrollment years 1997 
through 2001. The numbers and percentages shown throughout this report are for programs 
that are required to report teaching staff and had at least one teacher. 
We converted the PIR Microsoft Access files obtained from ACF into Statistical Analysis 
Software (SAS) to assess national progress in meeting the COATS Act mandate to increase 
Head Start teacher qualifications.  The SAS data were merged with United States Census 
Bureau urban and rural population statistics by county, allowing us to assess the percentage of 
urban and rural populations in the county where the Head Start program is located. 
Sample of Head Start Directors 
We contacted 300 Head Start programs, based on a simple random sample of programs that 
submitted PIR data for Head Start enrollment year 2001.  We limited our interviews to 
traditional Head Start programs. This limitation allowed us to make uniform comparisons 
across programs. We excluded five programs after learning the programs were solely home-
based or were no longer active when we contacted them. We received responses from 
263 directors, for an overall response rate of 89 percent (263/295). However, the response 
rate for individual questions varied. We received responses from at least 205 directors for the 
questions we analyzed. All information gathered from Head Start directors was encoded to 
Microsoft Access and converted into SAS for detailed data analysis. 
Sample of Head Start Teaching Staff 
We selected a random clustered sample of Head Start programs based on PIR data for Head 
Start enrollment year 2001, limiting the sample to traditional Head Start programs.  We 
grouped all Head Start programs into geographic clusters, based on their zip code.  Each 
cluster contained five programs. We then randomly selected 16 of these clusters in 3 
geographic strata: 4 clusters from the Western United States, 5 clusters from the Central United 
States, and 7 clusters from the Eastern United States.  We used a random stratified cluster 
sampling methodology to select teaching staff for interviews.  We chose this sampling 
methodology in order to project our findings to the universe of Head Start teaching staff. Within 
each sample cluster, we stratified teaching staff into four strata: 
  Current teaching staff with an associate degree or higher 
  Current teaching staff with a CDA only 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  12  OEI-07-01-00560  	 Former teaching staff with an associate degree or higher, who resigned from the 
program between October 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001 
	 Former teaching staff with a CDA only, who resigned from the program between 
October 1, 2000 and June 30, 2001 
Within each cluster, we randomly selected 15 teaching staff from each of the 4 strata. If a 
stratum contained fewer than 15 teaching staff, we selected all staff in the stratum. We then 
attempted in-person or telephone interviews with all sampled teaching staff. The rate of 
response from former teachers (degreed and CDA) was low because many of them could not 
be located. Therefore, we did not perform statistical analysis on these sampling groups. 
Universe, Sample, and Response Rate for Current and Former Teachers 
Universe 
Type of  for the  Total Sample for the 
Teacher  16 Sampling Clusters  16 Sampling Clusters  Total Responses  Response Rate 
Current Degreed  984  237  221  93.2% 
Current CDA  771  207  197  95.2% 
Former Degreed  124  116  29  25.0% 
Former CDA  61  60  15  25.0% 
Total:  1,940  620  462 
We purposively selected 6 of the 16 sampled clusters for in-person visits, varying both the 
percentage of urban population in the cluster and their geographic locations.  We conducted 
on-site visits to the following clusters: 
  Cluster 02-Southern California 
  Cluster 06-Texas 
  Cluster 08-Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee 
  Cluster 09-Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky 
  Cluster 10-Florida 
  Cluster 11-New Hampshire, Vermont 
For all sampled teachers, we gathered: 
  Pertinent information on their educational opportunities 
  Possible barriers they faced in obtaining their degree 
  Incentives offered to continue their education 
  Salary and benefits offered by their Head Start employer 
	 Availability of professional development opportunities since the implementation of 
the COATS Act 
  Factors that influenced their decision to remain with Head Start 
  Factors that may cause them to consider leaving the program 
All information gathered from teachers was encoded to Microsoft Access and was 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  13  OEI-07-01-00560  converted into SAS for detailed data analysis. For current teachers, we performed an 
analysis based on a computed sample weight of each sampling cluster as compared to the 
Nation. We examined issues relating to salary, benefits, and factors that teaching staff 
considered important in their decision to either remain with Head Start or seek other 
employment. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  14  OEI-07-01-00560  APPENDIX B 
Confidence Intervals - Reported Teacher Data

Affirmative Response 
Key Estimates  Point Estimate  Confidence Interval 
Are you working toward a degree?  77% - CDAs  +/- 11% 
Has Head Start provided any assistance to help 
you in obtaining your degree?  88% - CDAs  +/- 5% 
Do you believe the effort to have more degreed 
teachers in Head Start has helped the program  83% - CDAs  +/- 8% 
and the children it serves?  92% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 3% 
Do you believe degreed teachers are better able  50% - CDAs  +/- 15% 
to address the needs of children?  57% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 11% 
Do you plan to remain with Head Start for the 
next 3 years? 
89% - CDAs  +/- 7% 
Yes 
83% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 6% 
11% - CDAs  +/- 7% 
No 
17% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 6% 
What are the factors that are influencing your 
decision to remain with the program? 
40% - CDAs  +/- 20% 
Salary 
41% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 11% 
34% - CDAs  +/- 18% 
Health Insurance (Self) 
39% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 14% 
16% - CDAs  +/- 9% 
Health Insurance for Family Members 
19% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 8% 
35% - CDAs  +/- 13% 
Retirement Plan 
38% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 13% 
50% - CDAs  +/- 13% 
Working Conditions 
55% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 9% 
41% - CDAs  +/- 14% 
Family Considerations 
30% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 6% 
Training and Educational  56% - CDAs  +/- 13% 
Opportunities  46% - Degreed Teachers  +/- 11% 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  15  OEI-07-01-00560  APPENDIX C 
Traditional Head Start Programs 

Reported Progress in Achieving At Least

50 Percent Degreed Teaching Staff

for Head Start Enrollment Year 2001 - by State

Head Start Programs 
that Have Achieved at least 50 percent 
Degreed Teaching Staff - By State 
= Majority of Programs are below 50 percent Degreed Teaching Staff 
Source: Program Information Report Data 
Percentage of 
Responsible  Number of Programs  Number of Programs  Programs 
ACF  During  At or Above  At or Above 
Regional  Enrollment Year  50% Degreed  50% Degreed 
States  Office  2000 through 20011  Teachers  Teachers 
Alabama  4  28  3  11% 
Alaska  10  6  0  0% 
Arizona  9  22  5  23% 
Arkansas  6  19  1  5% 
American Samoa  9  1  0  0% 
California  9  129  75  58% 
Colorado  8  40  20  50% 
Connecticut  1  23  16  70% 
Delaware  3  5  3  60% 
D.C.  3  9  8  89% 
Florida  4  63  18  29% 
Federal States of  9  3  0  0% 
Micronesia 
Georgia  4  37  5  14% 
Guam  9  1  0  0% 
Hawaii  9  5  5  100% 
Idaho  10  7  5  71% 
Illinois  5  91  80  88% 
Indiana  5  39  24  62% 
Iowa  7  20  11  55% 
Kansas  7  27  18  67% 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  16  OEI-07-01-00560  Percentage of 
Responsible  Number of Programs  Number of Programs  Programs 
ACF  During  At or Above  At or Above 
Regional  Enrollment Year  50% Degreed  50% Degreed 
States  Office  2000 through 20011  Teachers  Teachers 
Kentucky  4  43  9  21% 
Louisiana  6  45  16  36% 
Maine  1  13  6  46% 
Marshall Islands  9  1  0  0% 
Maryland  3  29  19  66% 
Massachusetts  1  31  23  74% 
Michigan  5  73  55  75% 
Minnesota  5  27  18  67% 
Mississippi  4  19  10  53% 
Missouri  7  22  6  27% 
Montana  8  13  3  23% 
Nebraska  7  16  11  69% 
Nevada  9  4  1  25% 
New Hampshire  1  6  6  100% 
New Jersey  2  30  17  57% 
New Mexico  6  15  5  33% 
New York  2  169  155  92% 
North Carolina  4  46  21  46% 
North Dakota  8  10  7  70% 
Northern Mariana Islands  9  1  1  100% 
Ohio  5  67  29  43% 
Oklahoma  6  20  3  15% 
Oregon  10  21  11  52% 
Pennsylvania  3  59  47  80% 
Puerto Rico  2  37  27  73% 
Palau  9  1  0  0% 
Rhode Island  1  8  8  100% 
South Carolina  4  14  2  14% 
South Dakota  8  8  7  88% 
Tennessee  4  24  7  29% 
Texas  6  102  43  42% 
Utah  8  8  4  50% 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  17  OEI-07-01-00560  Percentage of 
Responsible  Number of Programs  Number of Programs  Programs 
ACF  During  At or Above  At or Above 
Regional  Enrollment Year  50% Degreed  50% Degreed 
States  Office  2000 through 20011  Teachers  Teachers 
Vermont  1  7  7  100% 
Virginia  3  50  37  74% 
Virgin Islands  2  1  0  0% 
Washington  10  28  17  61% 
West Virginia  3  24  12  50% 
Wisconsin  5  32  21  66% 
Wyoming  8  7  3  43% 
Total:  1,706  971  57% 
1  The numbers and percentages shown above are for those programs that were required to report teaching 
staff and had at least one teacher. 
2  This analysis is based on traditional Head Start programs only, allowing for comparison of more similar 
programs. Had American Indian and Alaska Native, migrant, and Early Head Start programs been 
included, the total programs would be 2,299, the number of programs not meeting ACFs self-imposed 
staffing goal would be 1,100, and the overall percentage of programs not meeting ACFs goal would be 47.8 
percent. 
Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  18  OEI-07-01-00560  APPENDIX D 
Agency Comments

Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  19  OEI-07-01-00560  Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  20  OEI-07-01-00560  Increasing the Qualifications of Head Start Teachers  21  OEI-07-01-00560  A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S  
This report was prepared under the direction of Brian T. Pattison, Regional Inspector General 
for Evaluation and Inspections in the Kansas City Regional Office and Gina C. Maree, 
Assistant Regional Inspector General. Other principal Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
staff who contributed include: 
Perry A. Seaton, Team Leader  Elise Stein, Director, 
Zula Crutchfield, Project Leader  Public Health and Human 
Elander J. Phillips, Program Analyst  Services Branch 
Brian T. Whitley, Program Analyst  Linda L. Hall, Program Specialist 
Technical Assistance 
Barbara R. Tedesco, Mathematical Statistician 
Robert L. Gibbons, Program Analyst, San Francisco