U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–820 PDF 2016

STRENGTHENING HEAD START FOR 

CURRENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 7, 2015 

Serial No. 114–29 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 7, 2015 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Biel, Dr. Matthew, MD, MSC, Division Chief, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Georgetown University, Washington, DC ..................................... 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Mead, Ms. Sara, Partner, Bellwether Education Partners, Washington, 

DC .................................................................................................................. 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Nolan, Mr. Timothy M., PH.D., Chief Executive Officer and Executive 

Director, National Centers for Learning Excellence, Inc., Waukesha, 

WI ................................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Sanchez Fuentes, Ms. Yvette, President, National Alliance for Hispanic 

Families, Gaithersburg, MD ........................................................................ 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Additional Submissions: 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan: 

Letter from Michigan Head Start Association ........................................ 35 

Vinci, Ms. Yasmina, National Head Start Association: 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52 

Mr. Nolan: 

Four Points in Time: Defining the Success of Our Nation’s Head 

Start Investment .................................................................................... 70 

Article: Quality Early Childhood Education: Enduring Benefits .......... 74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

STRENGTHENING HEAD START FOR 

CURRENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS 

Wednesday, October 7, 2015 

House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. John Kline [chairman of the 

committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Walberg, Salmon, 

Guthrie, Rokita, Heck, Brat, Carter, Bishop, Grothman, Curbelo, 

Stefanik, Allen, Scott, Hinojosa, Grijalva, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, 

Bonamici, Jeffries, Clark, Adams, and DeSaulnier. 

Staff Present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Kathlyn Ehl, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, 

Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; 

Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alex Ricci, Legislative Assistant; 

Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Sheariah Yousefi, Staff Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority 

Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Tina Hone, 

Minority Education Policy Director and Associate General Counsel; 

Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Kevin McDermott, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Alexander Payne, Minority 

Education Policy Advisor; Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy Fellow; and Arika Trim, Minority Press Secretary. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone. Having a hearing here in these quarters is still an adventure for some of us. I suspect that some of my 

colleagues are wandering around over in the Rayburn House Office 

Building even now. 

Well, this year marks the 50th anniversary of Head Start, a program that plays an important role in the lives of many children 

and families. Head Start was designed to offer comprehensive services to 3- and 4-year-old children from low-income families so they 

could start school on a level playing field with their peers. What 

began as a summer school program has grown into a multibilliondollar effort, serving roughly 1 million children at approximately 

1,600 centers across the country. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Today, Head Start is one of the largest, most significant investments in early childhood education and development, both in the 

number of children being served and taxpayer dollars being spent. 

We know a great education can be the great equalizer, but we also 

know some children have a tough time adapting to the pressures 

of school, and that can be especially true for children living in poverty. Without the proper support, these students are more likely to 

fall behind in school and to fall through the cracks later in life. 

Helping these children succeed in the classroom is a priority that 

has stretched across party lines for decades, and that has been reflected in the longstanding bipartisan support for Head Start. It’s 

an important program, but it’s also a program that faces a number 

of challenges. 

The most glaring example is the continued concern that Head 

Start isn’t providing children with long-term results. A 2010 study 

by the Obama administration found that the gains children receive 

in Head Start are largely gone by the time they reach the first 

grade. A follow-up study tracked the same children through the 

third grade and concluded, quote: ‘‘By the end of third grade there 

were very few impacts in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting practices. The few impacts 

that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children,’’ close quote. 

As policymakers, we have to answer a number of important questions. How do we do better for both current and future generations? 

How do we ensure Head Start provides taxpayers a good return on 

their investment? How do we ensure Head Start delivers the longterm positive impact these vulnerable children desperately need? 

To help answer these questions, the committee earlier this year 

urged the public to submit ideas for reforming the program. At the 

same time, we outlined a number of key principles for reauthorizing the Head Start Act, such as reducing unnecessary regulatory 

burdens, encouraging local innovation, and enhancing parental engagement. We asked stakeholders and concerned citizens to tell us 

how we can turn these principles into a responsible legislative proposal. 

Little did we know that as we were trying to strengthen Head 

Start through the legislative process, the administration was 

crafting a scheme to fundamentally transform Head Start through 

the regulatory process. No doubt we will discuss in greater detail 

the pros and cons of the administration’s regulatory proposal. 

However, we should all be deeply troubled by what are expected 

to be very harsh consequences if this proposal is implemented, including 126,000 fewer Head Start slots and 9,000 fewer instructors. 

I am pleased the administration recognizes the need to improve 

Head Start, but I strongly urge Secretary Burwell to work with us 

on that effort through the reauthorization process. By working toward a legislative solution, I am confident we can provide low-income children the strong head start they deserve. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being a part of that effort as 

well, and I look forward to your testimony. 

With that, I will now yield to Ranking Member Bobby Scott for 

his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning. This year marks the 50th anniversary of Head Start, a program 

that plays an important role in the lives of many children and families. Head Start 

was designed to offer comprehensive services to three- and four-year-old children 

from low-income families so they could start school on a level playing field with 

their peers. What began as a summer school program has grown into a multi-billion 

dollar effort serving roughly one million children at approximately 1,600 centers 

across the country. 

Today Head Start is one of the largest, most significant investments in early 

childhood education and development, both in the number of children being served 

and taxpayer dollars being spent. We know a great education can be the great 

equalizer. But we also know some children have a tough time adapting to the pressures of school, and that can be especially true for children living in poverty. Without the proper support, these students are more likely to fall behind in school and 

to fall through the cracks later in life. 

Helping these children succeed in the classroom is a priority that has stretched 

across party lines for decades, and that has been reflected in the long-standing, bipartisan support for Head Start. It’s an important program, but it’s also a program 

that faces a number of challenges. 

The most glaring example is the continued concern that Head Start isn’t providing 

children with long-term results. A 2010 study by the Obama administration found 

that the gains children receive in Head Start are largely gone by the time they 

reach the first grade. A follow-up study tracked the same children through the third 

grade and concluded: 

‘‘By the end of third grade there were very few impacts . . . in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.’’ 

As policymakers, we have to answer a number of important questions. How do 

we do better for both current and future generations? How do we ensure Head Start 

provides taxpayers a good return on their investment? How do we ensure Head 

Start delivers the long-term, positive impact these vulnerable children desperately 

need? 

To help answer these questions, the committee earlier this year urged the public 

to submit ideas for reforming the program. At the same time, we outlined a number 

of key principles for reauthorizing the Head Start Act, such as reducing unnecessary 

regulatory burdens, encouraging local innovation, and enhancing parental engagement. We asked stakeholders and concerned citizens to tell us how we can turn 

these principles into a responsible legislative proposal. 

Little did we know that as we were trying to strengthen Head Start through the 

legislative process, the administration was crafting a scheme to fundamentally 

transform Head Start through the regulatory process. No doubt we will discuss in 

greater detail the pros and cons of the administration’s regulatory proposal. However, we should all be deeply troubled by what are expected to be very harsh consequences if this proposal is implemented, including 126,000 fewer Head Start slots 

and 9,000 fewer instructors. 

I am pleased the administration recognizes the need to improve Head Start, but 

I strongly urge Secretary Burwell to work with us on that effort through the reauthorization process. By working toward a legislative solution, I am confident we can 

provide low-income children the strong head start they deserve. I want to thank our 

witnesses for being a part of that effort as well, and I look forward to your testimony. 

With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Bobby Scott for his opening remarks. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and the 

panelists that have come to our committee hearing today, and I 

look forward to their testimony. 

Today’s hearing focuses on Head Start, a program whose mission 

is to promote school readiness of young children from low-income 

families. The program is unique from other early learning efforts 

in that it works to address infant and toddler emotional development through a two-generation approach. Not only does Head Start 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

and its companion, Early Head Start, serve children from birth to 

5, but also these children’s parents, through parenting support, 

goal setting, and assistance in assessing comprehensive services. 

This two-generation structure that assists families in health and 

well-being efforts assists also in accessing other assistance programs, and promoting a nurturing home environment is the reason 

why the Department of Health and Human Services operates Head 

Start and not the Department of Education. 

The importance of high-quality early learning opportunities cannot be overstated. The achievement gap starts as early as 9 months 

old when babies from low-income families show a significant difference in cognitive skill function than those born in high-income 

families. That difference contributes to the 30-million word gap, 

which references the difference in number of words an infant from 

a low-income families will hear by age 3 when compared to infants 

in high-income families. The gap continues into the K through 12 

system and is evident through differences in State test scores, SAT 

scores, college attendance, graduation rates, and even employment 

rates. In other words, if we are serious about closing the achievement gap, we must start early. 

Quality Head Start programs eliminate the gap that exists in 

kindergarten between low-income toddlers and toddlers from more 

affluent families. Long-term benefits from early childhood learning 

opportunities like Head Start are also well documented. Not only 

do high-quality early learning programs produce academic results, 

they produce personal and professional results that last over a person’s lifetime. 

Early childhood education helps close not only the achievement 

gap, but the employment and income gaps. Decades of research 

shows that properly nurturing children in the first 5 years of life 

through high-quality programs like Head Start is instrumental in 

supporting enhanced brain development, cognitive function, emotional and physical health, but all too often low-income families 

lack access to high-quality affordable early childhood education, 

and these children tend to fall behind. 

We know that children who don’t participate in high-quality 

early learning programs are more likely to have weaker educational outcomes, lower lifetime earnings, increased involvement 

in special education services and the criminal justice system. The 

cost to society can be quantified. Every dollar we spend can save 

up to $7 later on. 

Just two programs provide the bulk of the Federal role in early 

education, the Head Start program and the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Unfortunately, because of limited funding, too 

few children have access to these programs. This unmet need continues to grow. Less than half of eligible children have access to 

Head Start, and only 5 percent of eligible students have access to 

Early Head Start. 

We have decades of evidence that investing in early learning programs like Head Start works, and it’s time to increase the investments in early learning programs, not just Head Start, but Early 

Head Start, childcare partnerships, Child Care Development Block 

Grants, Preschool Development Block Grants, home visiting programs, and IDEA Part C. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

We must ensure that we are giving all children a chance to succeed. The only way to ensure that all children have an opportunity 

is to improve quality and lyrobust fund early childhood opportunities. So I thank our panelists for coming and I look forward to their 

testimony. And yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Thank you Chairman Kline, and thank you to the panelists for coming to this 

Committee hearing today. I look forward to your testimonies. 

Today’s hearing focuses on Head Start, a program with an exceptional mission to 

promote the school readiness of young children from low-income families. The program is unique from other early learning efforts in that it works to address infant 

and toddler emotional development through a two generation approach. Not only 

does Head Start, and its companion, Early Head Start, serve children from birth 

through age five, but also those children’s parents through parenting support, goal 

setting, and assistance in accessing comprehensive services. 

The importance of high-quality, early learning opportunities cannot be overstated. 

The achievement gap starts as early as nine months old, when babies from low-income families show a significant difference in cognitive skill function than those 

born into high-income families. That difference contributes to the 30 million word 

gap, which references the difference in the number of words an infant from a lowincome family will hear by age three compared to an infant from a high-income family. The gap continues into the K–12 system and is evident through the difference 

in state test scores, SAT scores, college attendance and graduation rates, and employment rates. In other words, if we are serious about closing the achievement gap, 

we must start early. 

Quality Head Start programs eliminate the gap that exists in kindergarten between low-income toddlers and toddlers from more affluent families. 

The long-term benefits of early childhood education programs, like Head Start, 

are also well-documented. Not only do high-quality, early learning programs produce 

academic results, they produce personal and professional results that last over a 

person’s lifetime. 

Early childhood education helps close not only the achievement gap, but the employment and income gaps. Decades of research shows that properly nurturing children in the first five years of life through high-quality programs like Head Start 

is instrumental to supporting enhanced brain development, cognitive functioning, 

and emotional and physical health. But all too often, low-income families lack access 

to high-quality, affordable early childhood education, and these children tend to fall 

behind. We know that children who don’t participate in high-quality, early education 

programs are more likely to have weaker educational outcomes, lower lifetime earnings, and increased involvement in special education services and the criminal justice system. But the cost to society can be quantified. Every dollar we spend today 

on high quality, early learning programs can save us up to $7 later on. 

Just two programs provide for the bulk of the federal role in early education: the 

Head Start Program and the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Unfortunately, because of limited federal funding, too few young children have access. This 

unmet need continues to grow – less than half of eligible children have access to 

Head Start and only five percent of eligible children have access to Early Head 

Start. We have decades of evidence that shows investing in early learning programs 

like Head Start works. It is time to increase investments in early learning programs 

– not just Head Start but Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships, Child Care 

Development Block Grants, Preschool Development Grants, home visiting programs, 

and IDEA Part C. We must ensure that we are giving ALL children the chance to 

succeed. The only way to ensure all children have that opportunity is to improve 

quality and robustly fund those programs. 

Thank you again to our witnesses for coming – I look forward to hearing from 

you all today. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

main open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing be submitted for the 

official hearing record. 

Chairman KLINE. It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses. 

Dr. Tim Nolan is executive director for the National Centers for 

Learning Excellence, Inc., a Head Start grantee in Waukesha, Wisconsin. In this role, he oversees over 330 Head Start and Early 

Head Start slots. Dr. Nolan also is co-chair of the Wisconsin Head 

Start Association’s Advocacy Work Group. 

Dr. Matthew Biel serves as director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical Center and as the assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Georgetown University 

School of Medicine here in Washington, D.C. Dr. Biel’s work focuses on child development, trauma and resilience, mood and anxiety disorders, autism spectrum disorders, and psychiatric care of 

children with medical illnesses. 

Dr. Biel has published extensively on access to mental health 

care for underserved populations, trauma and resilience, and family engagement. Very busy man. 

Sara Mead is a partner in the Policy and Thought Leadership 

Practice with Bellwether Education Partners here in Washington, 

D.C. Ms. Mead has written and conducted several policy analyses 

on early childhood education, charter schools, teacher quality, and 

State and Federal education policy issues. 

Yvette Sanchez Fuentes is the president of the National Alliance 

for Hispanic Families in Gaithersburg, Maryland. In this position, 

Ms. Sanchez Fuentes guides the Alliance’s research programs and 

public policies in order to better serve Hispanic communities in 

need. Prior to joining the Alliance, Ms. Sanchez Fuentes served as 

director for the Office of Head Start in the Department of Health 

and Human Services from 2009 to 2013. 

I will now ask our witnesses to stand and to raise your right 

hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman KLINE. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. Please be seated. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. We allow 5 minutes for each 

witness to provide testimony. When you begin, the light in front of 

you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow, and at the 5-minute mark, the light will turn red, and you 

should wrap up your testimony. And here in this very fancy hearing room, you actually have a clock in front of you. You can watch 

that wind down as well. Don’t get too fascinated with it. 

I loathe to gavel down any witness during their opening testimony, but I would ask you, when you see that red light, to please 

move very quickly to wrapping up so that we can get on with the 

rest of the hearing and my colleagues can ask questions. All of us 

are restricted to the 5-minute rule as well. 

Okay. I think we’re ready to get started. Dr. Nolan, you’re recognized. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

TESTIMONY OF DR. TIMOTHY M. NOLAN, PH.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTERS FOR LEARNING EXCELLENCE, INC., WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 

Mr. NOLAN. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member 

Scott, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me 

to provide testimony this morning on the very important topic of 

this hearing. 

2015 marks the 50th anniversary of Head Start creating opportunities for at-risk children and families. As of today, 10 percent of 

all Americans have now attended Head Start, including such 

notables as Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, and 

the Honorable Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human 

Services. This topic could not be more important as we look forward to shaping the future. 

I’m a Head Start director here to share my thoughts and observations based upon extensive experience. I’m a local program director, a psychologist by training, a State national leader, a consultant, and an author. 

I first showed up for work in my Head Start program on September 1, 1968. I arrived with a sense of curiosity and awe about 

Head Start and the possibilities that it presented for the future. 

Today, 46 years later, I still arrive at work feeling the same sense 

of possibility. We must work together to preserve and deepen this 

unique national capability. 

Head Start was created in ‘64 and launched in ‘65 as an intervention program. Those invited to the table to shape the program 

were physicians and psychologists. There was not an educator 

among them. Head Start has always been an intervention program 

that would include but not be limited to cognitive learning gains. 

To accomplish this, we deal with the whole child, nutrition, medical and dental health, mental health, interpersonal skills development, and the several domains of cognitive development. Young 

children simply cannot learn if their teeth hurt, if they are hungry, 

or if they are regularly absent because of unstable housing or family challenges. 

Only the most needy are served by Head Start. We enroll the 

children others too often reject, suspend, or expel. We enroll the 

family, not just their child, identifying the needs and goals of the 

family and working regularly with them throughout the year in 

order to help them succeed in achieving their goals. 

In my agency, we partner with the Medical College of Wisconsin 

and the Wisconsin Children’s Hospital, who provide weekly mental 

health consultation services to my staff. Poverty has a major impact upon mental health in both the enrolled child and their parent. 

Head Start programs partner with public schools. In my agency, 

we have 107 4-year-olds with a half-day of Head Start, plus a 

school-funded half-day of 4-year-old kindergarten. We also provide 

leadership locally in this effort, including teacher training. 

We individualize instruction in concert with parent input, assuring that the parent is a key part of this process. Parents are their 

child’s primary teacher, and we have high expectations of parents. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

We support their development. This family-centric approach is not 

evidenced by other public entities serving young children at risk. 

In 1991, in an effort to share innovative best practices, I wrote 

a thought piece titled ‘‘What Really Makes Head Start Work.’’ In 

it, I identified a secret to Head Start’s success based upon my experience and extensive observation. We create what we call compassionate partnerships between a Head Start staff member and a 

parent or guardian on behalf of their child. These relationships are 

based upon respect, trust, and a focus upon the child. Hundreds of 

thousands of individualized compassionate partnerships are created 

each year across the Head Start world. 

As I complete my thoughts on strengthening Head Start for current and future generations, several thoughts come to mind. You 

can mandate compliance. You cannot mandate excellence. We must 

achieve excellence, and we know how to do this. 

We should not seek to make Head Start more like the public 

schools, but to make the public schools more like Head Start. Involved parents, create compassionate partnerships between teachers and parents, don’t send Head Start eligible 4-year-old children 

into public school kindergarten instead of Head Start when they 

need a full range of intervention services unavailable in practically 

every LEA. Our local schools love having us work with the children 

most in need in their district. We love it too. 

Innovation is in our DNA. Standardization kills creativity. Head 

Start programs annually study their marketplace through a community needs assessment and adjust services accordingly. Don’t 

allow one-size-fits-all program designs. We want to continue to deliver upon the promise that every child can succeed. I look forward 

to working with the committee on this. 

Thank you. 

[The testimony of Mr. Nolan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 96820.001
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 96820.002
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 96820.003
12 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Biel, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MATTHEW BIEL, MD, MSC, DIVISION 

CHIEF, CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Dr. BIEL. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member 

Scott, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to— 

Chairman KLINE. Microphone. Check your microphone, please. 

Dr. BIEL. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. There you go. 

Dr. BIEL. I am very grateful for the opportunity to join today’s 

hearing. Thank you. 

In my clinical work caring for children and families, and in my 

research, I focus on identifying strategies to build resilience and 

enhance childhood outcomes in the face of adversity. Converging 

evidence from neuroscience research identifies the infant, toddler, 

and preschool years as a time of great promise and also of great 

vulnerability. Experiences in the first 5 years of life, both positive 

and negative, have critical effects on outcomes across the lifespan. 

Early childhood truly sets the course for physical and mental 

wellbeing or dysfunction. 

The building blocks for successful early development include an 

environment that provides basic resources and capable care from 

adult caregivers. Nurturing relationships with adults stimulate 

brain development beginning in infancy, creating the neurological 

foundations for health, learning, and positive social interactions. 

However, early exposure to toxic stressors, such as extreme poverty, abuse or neglect, or living with a parent with mental illness 

or substance abuse, disrupts developing brain architecture. Children who have not received appropriate nurturance and stimulation in the first 5 years are already significantly disadvantaged. 

They are likely to have less emotional stability, greater risk for 

physical health problems, and more ground to make up in academic 

readiness. The deck is truly stacked against them before their first 

day of kindergarten. 

Experiencing severe adversity in early childhood may be the single most modifiable risk factor for future problems, including obesity, diabetes, depression, addiction, school failure, lost productivity, and incarceration. As you know, these are among the most 

pernicious and costly problems that our society faces, and science 

tells us that they often have their origins in early childhood. 

Meaningful interventions to reduce the damage caused by early 

adversity can produce significant benefits for society, including increasing individuals’ capacities to learn and earn, lowering crime 

rates, saving spending on special education and social safety nets, 

and reducing the cost of common and expensive chronic health conditions. 

Many communities do not have well-coordinated resources to 

help families and children buffer the effects of adversity. Too often, 

efforts to identify vulnerable children in one sector ignore parallel 

efforts in another sector. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

13 

This fragmented approach is exacerbated by structural barriers 

that separate service delivery systems in the domains of physical 

health, mental health, and early childhood education. These artificial silos persist despite glaring evidence from the scientific literature that child development observes no such separation. Children living in highly stressed environments struggle in ways that 

simultaneously impact learning, physical health, and emotional 

stability. 

The good news. A number of clearly effective interventions to 

prevent and ameliorate the impact of toxic stress in young lives 

have been developed and are deliverable in Head Start. Nationwide, there is a great need to effectively integrate evidence-based 

strategies in order to limit the harmful effects of toxic stress and 

to create buffers for young children and their families. 

The early childhood educational setting, like Early Head Start 

and Head Start, is an ideal arena for such interventions. Early 

childhood brain development predicts later social success, psychological health, and academic achievement. The capacities for selfcontrol, for positive social interactions, emotional stability, paying 

attention, following instructions, all crucial skills for functioning in 

school and in the community, are brain-based capacities that have 

to be mastered in early childhood. Delays in these areas are readily 

relevant in the early childhood education setting and can be corrected through intervention. 

High-quality Head Start programming, enriched by proven intervention strategies, can have an immensely positive impact by helping children to catch up on these crucial skills before it is too late. 

Based upon my work and the work of my colleagues, I submit 

four recommendations to this committee in assessing Head Start 

and other similar programs under your jurisdiction. 

One, Head Start providers require training to equip them to 

identify children who may be experiencing toxic stress and to implement effective techniques to respond to these difficulties within 

the classroom. Early childhood providers receive limiting training 

in understanding and responding to social and emotional challenges facing their students. Enhanced professional development in 

these areas should be a priority. 

Two, evidence-based interventions to promote social and emotional health should be supported across early childhood educational settings, including Head Start. Initiatives deserving support include in-school clinical consultation from mental health professionals, as well as teacher-delivered interventions that support 

the development of brain-based skills that are crucial to social and 

academic competence. 

Three, efforts to enhance early childhood outcomes require effective coordination and integration. We need local approaches that effectively identify community needs, unify available programs and 

resources, and address gaps in programming with high-quality evidence-based approaches. The challenges of early childhood vulnerability require holistic, community-based strategies. 

Four, while Head Start providers are important contributors to 

a child’s health and development, the family is the first and most 

consistent influence. Interventions that do not engage the family 

are destined to be less effective. To truly improve child outcomes, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

14 

it is critical to enlist families in the educational enterprise taking 

place in early childhood centers, to include families in their children’s educations, and to effectively collaborate with other community resources that are available to support families’ diverse needs. 

Interventions that effectively include families in early childhood 

education deserve additional development and support. 

In closing, I recommend specific support for provider training in 

understanding and addressing emotional and behavioral concerns 

in young children, high-quality behavioral health strategies to support early learning environments, integration rather than 

siloization of programming efforts, and special education to 

strengthening families through engagement efforts emerging from 

early childhood educational settings. 

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. 

[The testimony of Dr. Biel follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 96820.004
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 96820.005
17 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Mead, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. SARA MEAD, PARTNER, BELLWETHER 

EDUCATION PARTNERS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. MEAD. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you this morning. My name is Sara Mead, and I’m a 

partner with Bellwether Education Partners, a nonprofit that helps 

education organizations improve results for high-need students. I 

conduct research on Head Start and other early childhood policies 

and advise foundations, advocacy organizations, and others, including Head Start grantees, working to improve early learning. 

Serving nearly a million children, Head Start plays a crucial role 

in our early childhood system and in improving outcomes for children in poverty. Children in poverty, as you’ve heard this morning, 

are more likely to experience trauma and toxic stress, have less access to learning experiences, and hear 30 million fewer words by 

age 3 than affluent children. Achievement gaps for disadvantaged 

youngsters emerge as early as 9 months in age, and by the time 

they enter kindergarten they are already far behind. 

Given these challenges, all children in poverty need access to 

high-quality early learning programs, including Head Start and 

State or locally funded pre-K, to enable them to enter school ready 

to succeed. 

Research, including the federally funded Head Start Impact 

Study and FACES survey, show that Head Start improves children’s school readiness at kindergarten entry. Although impacts on 

test scores decline through the elementary grades, longer-term 

studies which followed children into adulthood show that Head 

Start alumni are more likely to graduate high school and have better adult outcomes than similar children who did not attend. 

Further analysis of Impact Study data also finds that Head Start 

produces significant and sustained learning gains compared to no 

preschool at all—in other words, Head Start works—but its results, 

on average, do not match those of the highest-quality publicly funded pre-K programs, such as those in New Jersey, Oklahoma, and 

Boston. Further, Head Start results vary widely across centers and 

programs, as much as or more than those of K-12 public schools. 

The key question then is not whether Head Start works, but how 

to enable all Head Start grantees to match the results of the best 

Head Start and pre-K programs. The bipartisan 2007 reauthorization took crucial steps to improve quality in outcomes in Head 

Start. As a result of these changes, 71 percent of Head Start preschool teachers now have at least a bachelor’s degree. Designation 

renewal, which requires identified grantees to compete to retain 

their grants, has led to the replacement of low-performing grantees 

and spurred others to improve their quality. The quality of teaching in Head Start classrooms is also improving. 

Despite this progress, however, additional reforms are needed. 

Six issues are particularly important. 

First, supporting quality teaching. Preschools that produce 

strong sustained learning gains employ teachers with bachelor’s degrees and training in early childhood, provide high-quality profesCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

sional development, and pay preschool teachers the same as K-12 

teachers. In contrast, one in four Head Start teachers lacks a bachelor’s degree, and Head Start teachers make $20,000 a year less 

than comparably trained kindergarten teachers. Improving Head 

Start teacher preparation and compensation must be a priority. 

Second, improving curriculum. To prepare children to succeed in 

school, great teachers need evidence-based, developmentally appropriate, content-rich, and well-organized curricula, but many early 

childhood curricula used in Head Start today fail to provide sufficiently rich content or support for teachers. 

Third, continuous improvement. At both the grantee and Federal 

level, Head Start needs to collect, analyze, and use data to support 

ongoing program improvement. This requires building grantee capacity and shifting the focus of monitoring from compliance to continuous improvement. To accelerate these efforts, researchers and 

Federal officials must collect and use program performance data to 

identify, learn from, and disseminate the practices of high-performing guarantees. 

Fourth, reducing burdensome regulations. Head Start programs 

are subject to some 1,400 separate requirements prescribing not 

just what they do, but how they do it. Head Start monitoring focuses largely on compliance with rules, not program results. Federal policymakers must reduce overly prescriptive and bureaucratic 

requirements on Head Start programs and provide greater flexibility to innovate. 

Fifth, improving coordination with State early childhood and K12 systems. As States build early learning systems, State and Federal policies must work to integrate Head Start with these systems. 

They should also support Head Start grantees to access and combine State and local pre-K and childcare funds in order to offer a 

longer day or improve program quality. As State pre-K expands, 

Head Start programs also need greater flexibility to shift resources 

between infants, toddlers, and preschoolers in response to changing 

community needs. 

Six, ensuring adequate funds. For too long, Federal policies have 

added new requirements to Head Start programs without providing 

sufficient funding to meet them. Improving quality in outcomes will 

require additional Federal investments to enable Head Start programs to cover the cost of improving quality without reducing children’s and families’ access to Head Start programs. 

The Obama administration has proposed changes to streamline 

the Head Start performance standards, reduce overly prescriptive 

and bureaucratic requirements, and bring expectations for Head 

Start in line with current research. But addressing the challenges 

above also requires statutory change in the next reauthorization of 

Head Start, as well as additional funding. 

As you begin your consideration of Head Start reauthorization, 

these issues, and the needs of Head Start children and families, 

must be at the center of the conversation. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Ms. Mead follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 96820.006
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 96820.007
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 96820.008
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 96820.009
23 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Sanchez Fuentes, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. YVETTE SANCHEZ FUENTES, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES, GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman 

Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the committee, for 

the opportunity to talk about strengthening Head Start. 

As you heard, I’m Yvette Sanchez Fuentes. I’m currently the 

president of the National Alliance for Hispanic Families. From 

2009 to 2013, I served as the director of the Office of Head Start 

at the Department of Health and Human Services. Today, I am 

proud to be before you as an advocate for Latino families and as 

someone who has experienced implementing the Head Start program at the local and Federal level. 

As we celebrate 50 years of Head Start, it’s a historic milestone 

that presents a perfect opportunity to reflect on how the program 

has grown and evolved. Head Start continues to play a critical and 

often controversial role in the ecosystem of early childhood education. 

But there are two things that make this program unique. The 

first is that Head Start was conceptualized as a two-generation 

program supporting the success of both children and their families 

in the communities they reside. The second is a set of values that 

have been passed on, including the belief that parents are the 

child’s first teacher, the priority to serve the most vulnerable children, the importance of community engagement, the significance of 

honoring culture and language, and the consequence of assuring 

high-quality comprehensive services. 

It’s been 50 years since President Johnson announced the creation of Project Head Start. The program initially began as an 8- 

week summer program to provide services to 3 and 4-year-olds 

through preschool classes, medical and dental care, and mental 

health services. 

Today, the program has expanded to include approximately 1,800 

nonprofit and for-profit organizations and States that provide Early 

Head Start services, services for American Indian and Alaska Natives, and the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start program. Head 

Start has grown from 560,000 children in that first summer to almost a million children enrolled in the last school year. 

During my time at the Office of Head Start, I had the privilege 

of visiting many Head Start programs across America, including 

the Havasupai Nation at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and programs in every borough of New York City. The uniqueness of Head 

Start is that while there are standards that lend themselves to 

measuring quality and effectiveness, the exact combination of the 

services designed by local grantees must be responsive to each 

child and families’ ethnic, cultural, and linguistic heritage. 

Programs build relationships with families that support positive 

parent-child relationships, family wellbeing, and connections to 

peers and community. President Johnson often described Head 

Start not so much as a Federal program, but a neighborhood effort. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

One example of that commitment is that since 1988, Minnesota has 

appropriated State general funds for local Head Start programs. 

Both Head Start and Early Head Start programs offer a variety 

of service models, depending on the needs of the community. Programs may be in centers, schools, family child care, or receive services through the home-based model. 

During my time at the Office of Head Start, the birth-to-five 

model was piloted. The pilot made grants available to develop a 

comprehensive, seamless birth-to-five program. This model offers 

promise for serving children from earlier ages and for longer periods of time. 

Much has changed since Head Start began 50 years ago. Head 

Start is no longer the sole provider of early childhood education. 

The State role in pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds has grown significantly and left many wondering where Head Start fits into this 

new landscape. 

For 50 years Head Start has been the Nation’s laboratory, providing services to homeless families, children with disabilities, 

dual-language learners, professional development for teachers, and 

training parents. There are millions of stories about how the Head 

Start changed the life of a child. I have seen it firsthand. One example: In New Jersey, a mom shared with me that after she lost 

everything when Hurricane Sandy hit, when she was able to check 

her messages, the only phone messages were from the Head Start 

teacher. 

As you work and consider changes to improve the Head Start 

program, it would be critical to maintain the Federal-to-local funding structure. So I’d like to end by sharing what Head Start means 

to me. It means that no matter where you are born in America, the 

color of your skin, the language you speak, the state of your child 

and family, Head Start will be there to offer an opportunity to 

make your dreams come true. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Ms. Sanchez Fuentes follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 96820.010
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 96820.011
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 96820.012
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 96820.013
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 96820.014
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 96820.015
31 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. Thank all the witnesses 

for excellent testimony. We have a panel of real experts here. I’ll 

yield myself 5 minutes, and then I’m going to be fascinated to 

watch the clock wind down here. 

It seems to me I’ve heard from all of you and so many people 

who are involved in Head Start that there is resistance to a onesize-fits-all model and that the local Head Start programs have to 

have the flexibility, my friends from Minnesota were telling me in 

the office the other day, to do the right thing for their students, for 

their population. 

So I’m going to start with you, Ms. Sanchez Fuentes, because you 

have an incredibly interesting and unique background working at 

the Federal level and with the kids on the ground. So as we look 

at making a new statute, how can we make sure that the Federal 

Government doesn’t impose either too many or too overly burdensome requirements on local programs? What should be our guidepost there? 

Ms. Sanchez Fuentes. Thank you for the question. 

So I would start by saying that standards are important. They 

do provide for a base level of quality, and it is a way to be able 

to measure how programs are doing across the country. 

I would also suggest, though, that monitoring, as it stands today, 

does focus on compliance. While there have been many changes to 

the monitoring system over the last 5 to 7 years, it does have quite 

a ways to go, and it does have to focus on providing flexibility to 

local programs. But as you can imagine, from a Federal perspective, that can be difficult if you have requirements that you are required to implement by the law while at the same time trying to 

hear what grantees are saying. 

So I would hope that as you think about reauthorization and 

what needs to change, keeping in mind the requirements that the 

Feds have to implement while at the same time trying to be innovative and listen to grantees. 

Chairman KLINE. Ought to be easy enough. 

Dr. Nolan, kind of the same question because you were getting 

at this as well. How can we make sure that people at State and 

local level are able to be innovative and to adapt to the needs that 

may exist in the bottom of the canyon or the top of the mountain, 

inner city and rural? How can we do that? Because the temptation, 

frankly, is just write a law and say all of you go do this thing. 

Mr. NOLAN. Correct. Yeah. One of the things that I would say to 

the committee, Head Start is very, very unusual in that most of the 

performance standards that are in place were advocated for from 

the field, and part of it was we wanted to make sure that Head 

Start across the Nation was as good as Head Start was in our community. 

One of the things that we have in place right now is the need 

to do an annual community needs assessment, a super in-depth one 

every 3 years, to make sure that the program we’re delivering is 

the program that our community needs. 

And one of the things that I would suggest to you, since I’m a 

consultant to business as well, in business they are discovering design thinking, which is put together a pilot, try it, learn from it, 

make it better. That’s been 50 years of Head Start’s history. I 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

mean, in my agency, the next 12 months is going to be a little different than the last 12 months based on who it is that we’re recruiting, what it is that the community is needing. 

A key piece. You can, as I said in any statement, you can mandate compliance. You cannot mandate excellence. One piece of the 

2007 legislation was on centers of early childhood excellence, which 

was a model that I worked very closely with Senator Alexander 

and his office on, came from a piece that we did in Wisconsin, and 

the notion there was to create models of Head Start excellence that 

could, in fact, be places for people to come experience and learn 

best practices. And we’ve got to put more emphasis on the magnet 

toward excellence and less on catch people doing something wrong. 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. If I may, I would just like to add one 

quick thing. So we already have a model in Head Start that exists. 

It’s called Migrant and Seasonal Head Start. I would suggest that 

would be a great place to start. These programs actually serve families birth-to-five, and they do have the ability to be flexible year 

by year, depending on the families who are coming into their community based on agricultural work. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Mead, or anybody that happens to know, the last authorization of Head Start was in 2007, and we think we made significant 

improvements. Can anybody comment on the changes made in 

2007 and whether they worked or not? 

Ms. MEAD. That’s a pretty broad question. And the 2007 reauthorization did a lot of things. Some of the most notable were the 

creation of the designation renewal system, which changed all 

Head Start grantees to 5-year grants and then required certain 

grantees to compete at the end of those 5-year grants if they hit 

any of seven indicators defined by the Department. 

That . . . based on what we’ve seen, about 5 percent of Head Start 

grantees have actually turned over, over the past 3 years, as a result of the designation renewal process. The process is far from perfect, largely because the criteria continue to be based in largely a 

compliance-oriented monitoring approach that we’ve already talked 

a bit about today and because a great deal of weight is placed on 

the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, which is an observation 

of teaching quality in Head Start classrooms, which is very, very 

powerful as a tool for professional development and for improving 

teaching practice, but is in and of itself not robust enough to put 

a large weight of program accountability on it without additional 

performance measures included. 

So there is a need to improve the criteria used for designation 

renewal, but designation renewal itself, in terms of results, has 

produced a variety of positive results in terms of spurring improvement and transitioning grants away from low-performing grantees. 

Another major change was obviously the creation of the requirement that 50 percent of Head Start teachers have a bachelor’s degree and all teachers have an associate’s degree. There’s been tremendous progress on that front. Over 70 percent of Head Start preschool teachers now have bachelor’s degrees. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

And through the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, which 

is the tool that I referenced earlier, used to monitor the quality of 

teaching, we have seen increased attention to the quality of instruction in Head Start classrooms, increased efforts to boost teachers’ skills and ability to engage children in meaningful instruction 

and emotional support, and we are seeing some progress at the program level on those scores. 

Although we are also learning that focusing on instruction alone 

and adult-child interactions alone without coupling that with rich 

curriculum is not producing the results that we want for kids in 

some cases. 

Mr. NOLAN. I’d like to address a couple of those items. I work 

very heavily with this committee and with the Senate side on reauthorization. I did 39 self-funded trips to this fine city. And you 

know you’ve been here too often when hotel staff are recognizing 

you. 

But because of the work that was done during reauthorization, 

we have something that we badly needed, which was a more organized approach to moving low-performing agencies out of Head 

Start. 

The what was correct. The who and the how is still broken, 

where we’ve got Type I, Type II error, so we are missing agencies 

that probably should be in designation renewal. We are throwing 

agencies into designation renewal who should never have been 

there. 

My own agency, one of the top agencies in the country, ended up 

in DRS because we were on the piece that Ms. Mead was talking 

about, the evaluation of classroom activity. We were 0.0109 under 

an artificial cutoff based on the observations of a single individual 

one time in our classrooms, and for that, we went through 18 

months of arduous reentry back into Head Start. 

We need to get it to be much better. We need to keep it in place 

because it’s really critical. 

I think the other piece that we need to come back and look at 

is, how do we deliver on what it is we know to be best practices? 

Best practices. When I. Twenty years ago, site visits were productive, positive events. The people coming in would make suggestions 

for improvement. There would be almost a kind of pollinating kind 

of a process of a team sharing things that they were learning 

across Head Start. 

At this point, it’s not permissible for site visit folks to make recommendations. We know how to do this much better than we do 

it on any given day. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Nolan, I want to get in another question. Can you 

say a word about the importance of parent committees? 

Mr. NOLAN. Yeah, the whole role of parents was institutionalized 

in 1970 in a regulation called 70.2, second regulation in 1970, and 

it institutionalized parents as decisionmakers, not just suggesting, 

not just kind of a parallel process to the decisionmakers. So what 

we want to do is make sure that we don’t lessen the role of parents 

in shaping that local agency and what it is that the agency is 

doing. 

Again, one of the things that I’ve said in some of the writings, 

we are one of the most customer-responsive organizations on Earth. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

34 

At one point, J.D. Power had identified that Head Start had a 

higher satisfaction rating than Mercedes-Benz. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In my home State of Michigan, Michigan Head Start offers services to more than 34,000 children and their families. In reading 

through Michigan’s Head Start’s comments on the Department’s 

notice of proposal rulemaking, they shared many worries and concerns that have already been raised today. They also recommend 

alternatives for implementation of the rule and ask for increased 

flexibility in order to mitigate the estimated lost opportunities for 

children and families, all the while still dedicated to finding ways 

at the local and State level to strengthen the quality of their programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask permission to have their letter put 

into our document. 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 96820.016
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 96820.017
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 96820.018
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 96820.019
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 96820.020
40 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Dr. Nolan, on the basis of your extensive experience in the field 

and with many, many children and families, could you share further your recommendations for alternate implementation, and 

maybe even more importantly, increased flexibility in the proposed 

rule that would allow your program to strengthen and improve? 

Mr. NOLAN. In many ways what we need is already in place, but 

we are not able to get to it in a culture that has shifted over the 

last decade toward catch people doing something wrong as opposed 

to build on strengths. There’s a wonderful book out called, ‘‘Soar 

with Your Strengths,’’ and that particular book speaks to the notion of investing in growing up the things that you’re really good 

at as opposed to trying to cover the things that are weakness areas. 

All of us have weaknesses. We all need to work on those. What 

we need to be doing is investing in building on strengths so that 

we can take parent involvement. And arguably, we are one of the 

best organizations in existence on involving parents, and we could 

be better. We need to have system recognition of those who are surpassing performance standards. 

Mr. WALBERG. Getting back to the proposed rule specifically, 

what is the proposed rule doing differently than that? 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, at this point, the proposed rule would lessen 

the role of parents, which is the direction we don’t want to take. 

We want to look at how to make that work better. It overlooks possibilities that have really not even had formal discussion. As we 

think about dual generation, how can we get better at that? 

And there is very little credit. For instance, I have an individual 

who’s on our board who came to us 32 years ago as a single parent, 

depressed, and at some point fully on public assistance. Basically, 

as he found Head Start and we kind of induced him into involvement—and he will tell you, and I have his story, that he was 

dragged kicking and screaming in—what happened was we helped 

him get his life in order. 

He ultimately started a business 22 years ago. Today he employs 

seven people. It’s not General Motors. But instead of being on public assistance himself, he is providing employment. We need more 

opportunity to do that and— 

Mr. WALBERG. Is success in changing parents relatively few and 

far between, or do you see this regularly? 

Mr. NOLAN. We see it regularly. I mean, in his case, starting a 

business and being an employer of 22 years, that’s unusual, but 

seeing the progress of parents is pretty much universal. We. Remember that we go out and recruit the least likely to succeed, so 

lots of chaos going on in people’s lives, lots of challenges, and because of the limited percentage of people who can make it into 

Head Start, those who do are very, very high in need. 

Mr. WALBERG. Ms. Sanchez Fuentes, let me just—and I appreciate those comments, and I want to labor further on that—do you 

find the same thing with parents in working with your group, as 

it were, and the specific needs relative to the Hispanic community 

and families? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. So I would say that at both the local 

level and at the national level, we have definitely seen that Hispanic children and families have the least access to quality care. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

So when they get into Head Start they take advantage of it, and 

we’ve seen that it does have positive effects and it can absolutely 

change the road that their lives take. 

Mr. WALBERG. For the kids, the students, but also the families. 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALBERG. And I guess, Mr. Biel, it looks like you’re jumping 

in your chair. Give me your response. 

Dr. BIEL. You’re very perceptive. 

So I just wanted to point out that it’s really not just about generic support for parents. There is really the opportunity to galvanize parents’ own skills and capacities through the activity that 

goes on within the four walls of a Head Start facility, that so much 

about improving childhood outcomes, some of the brain-based capacities that I mentioned in my testimony, can be really, really accelerated in their improvement through addressing those same capacities in parents’ executive functioning and emotional regulation. 

Those are capacities that change throughout the lifespan. The 

most promising time is to get in there in the first 5 years, but it’s 

not too late when we’ve got a 25- or 35-year-old parent walking 

through the Head Start doors, to intervene with those parents and 

by improving their capacity. 

Chairman KLINE. I’m sorry, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s good to talk good 

things about parents. 

Chairman KLINE. Indeed. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott, for holding this important hearing today. 

And thank you to the distinguished panelists for testimony and 

appearance here today. 

I strongly believe we must reauthorize Head Start without delay. 

Strengthening and improving high-quality early learning programs 

like Head Start is one of the best investments we can possibly 

make. 

I have four daughters, and one of them, the fourth one, was recognized as teacher of the year in a region in south Texas that 

serves 39 school districts, and she was teacher of the year for early 

childhood development, teaches 3 and 4-year-olds. And she says: 

‘‘Dad, Congress can do better.’’ 

So let me say that in my congressional district, Head Start and 

Migrant Head Start serves more than 12,000 children of working 

families, and these programs have made a significant impact on 

improving the opportunities for our children, especially our Nation’s Latino and African American youth. 

I founded what I call the South Texas Literacy Coalition 6 years 

ago to promote early literacy and parental involvement in our vulnerable children’s education opportunities because I have always 

believed that teaching our children fundamental skills such as 

early reading and writing is a formula, a winning formula, for success. 

This early learning program of reading every day for 30 minutes 

before bedtime from cradle to age 4, before they go to kindergarten, 

helps children love books, build a good vocabulary, and helps them 

stay at grade level kindergarten through the 12th grade. We must 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

maintain the national program quality and comprehensive services 

of Head Start that you, as panelists, have recommended. 

My first question is to Ms. Fuentes. It’s an honor to have you testify here today, and I commend you for your dedication to underprivileged children and to our Hispanic community. 

My district is situated on the border with Mexico and is a very 

high need area with 92 percent Hispanic population. What improvements can we make to the Head Start program so that all minority children and their families in high-need areas like my district can continue to benefit from this Head Start program? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. I appreciate 

that. 

So I would say very clearly that one thing that Congress can do 

is actually blend Head Start and Early Head Start into one seamless program, birth-to-five, so that it does create the flexibility that 

programs need in making sure that they’re serving the most vulnerable children. 

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start is a perfect example of this. 

They’ve been doing it since the inception. And they really do provide services to those that are most in need, but they also have the 

flexibility, depending on what is happening in their community, to 

determine who are those children on a case-by-case basis. And that 

happens through flexibility, accountability, and also through very 

robust community needs assessment that takes into account who is 

in your community, what are the other services that are available, 

and who are the kids who are being left out. 

So thank you for the question. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Ms. Sanchez, in your testimony you stress the importance of maintaining the community-based structure. Are you 

concerned that the Head Start program is moving towards a more 

centralized structure rather than a community based one, as you 

described? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Not at all, sir. I was really referring to 

stating explicitly that the program should remain a Federal to local 

program. These are Federal tax dollars, and we do have to be held 

accountable for how those are used, but— 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Thank you. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I want to ask a question of Sara Mead. The bipartisan 20–0-7 

Head Start reauthorization called for significant improvements to 

Head Start. Important changes to the program have been made 

over the past 8 years. What impact have you seen thus far? 

Ms. MEAD. So we talked about some of the changes in terms of 

more teachers with bachelor’s degrees, improvements in classroom 

quality, turnover of some of the low-performing grants. We don’t 

actually have data right now to see what impact it’s made in 

changes on children’s learning. It just takes too long to do that 

kind of research for us to know what the impact has been on children’s learning. 

But as we look at any of the research from the Impact Study, for 

example, it’s important to realize that Head Start today is a very 

different program than Head Start in 2002 was in a number of key 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

quality domains when the children in the Impact Study went to 

school. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Before I yield back to you, Chairman Kline, I just 

want to close by saying to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 

we in Congress can do more. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. 

Dr. HECK. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you all for being here and for your testimony today. And 

certainly anyone who spent any time in a Head Start classroom, 

like I have in my district, would understand and see the clear benefits of the program. 

But I would ask, you know, for those that are detractors or 

naysayers, and there are some that are out there, about Head Start 

programs, how do you explain the incongruencies between what 

would seem intuitive and what all of you have discussed this morning, that early intervention in education prepares children for future success, especially those children that suffer from, quoting Dr. 

Biel, early adversity, and the HHS Head Start Impact Study that 

found by the end of the third grade there were very few impacts 

in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health, 

and parenting practices, and the few impacts that were found did 

not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for 

children? 

There seems to be a disconnect between the HHS study and what 

appears to be intuitive and what you have all talked about today. 

Mr. NOLAN. Let me jump in, because it obviously is an albatross 

that’s been around our neck since 1970 in the Nixon administration. One of the things that I think we’ve got to be very careful of 

is to imagine that Head Start can be a magic bullet that can erase 

the family challenges of the most needy families in the country on 

a permanent basis. 

I mean, what we’re looking at is a 4- or 5-year-old who’s handed 

over to the public schools and now we’re looking at them 4 years 

later to look at differences. And I have two pieces that I want to 

put in. One is a quote from Governor John Kasich of Ohio who has 

said publicly multiple times that when children are in Head Start, 

they are on a superhighway, and then they hit the gravel road of 

public education. And one of the issues that we face is public education is not prepared to maintain differences over time. 

A personal experience. My oldest daughter was born to two college students, so she watched us read a lot, which then induced her 

to become an early reader. By 18 months, she was decoding words. 

She was an accomplished reader by the time she hit public school. 

Their accommodation was to put the first grader into second 

grade reading. Then we had a meeting. And the meeting with the 

first grade teacher, second grade teacher, and the principal was 

ended by me when the principal announced: ‘‘I wouldn’t worry 

much about Tracy. By the time she’s in third grade, she’ll be pretty 

much like everybody else.’’ 

And as a parent, that was not our goal. And what we’re up 

against is we’re running a public education system that still is on 

a modified agrarian calendar using a manufacturing batch model 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

system trying to prepare kids for an electronic age. We’ve got to 

work together on schools. 

I mean, one of the things that encouraged Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, on is we need to quit treating kids as though 

they are a baton to be handed off to the public schools. We would 

like to keep working with the parents to help them figure out how 

to become a part of decision making in their child’s life once they 

hit public schools. 

Mr. NOLAN. And I’ll end with a comment from one of the principals in one of our partnerships who said: ‘‘You really need to keep 

in mind that quite a number of building principals see themselves 

as the gatekeeper to keep parents out of school, as opposed to encouraging them to come in.’’ We need to change that. 

Ms. MEAD. So first I think it’s important to recognize that the 

Impact Study did show that children in Head Start made significant learning gains while they were in Head Start. But I think in 

context, it just underscores Mr. Hinojosa’s point that we need to do 

better. Because most early childhood intervention shows some form 

of decline in impact over time, the magnitude of that impact at kindergarten entry is very important. And Head Start’s impact at kindergarten entry was not as large as some other high quality preK programs. So we need to look at what we can do in the program 

to increase that impact. 

And we also need to look at the variation that we’re now seeing 

in the Impact Study data across Head Start programs themselves, 

to try to understand what are the various factors within different 

Head Start programs that lead to better and worse results. And to 

try to get more Head Start programs to look like the ones that are 

producing the best results for kids. We have programs that are producing great, long-term, sustained results for kids. We need to 

spread that across the entire program. 

Mr. HECK. Great. I thank you all very much. Dr. Nolan, thank 

you for your insightful review. And I hadn’t heard Governor’s Kasich’s quote previously, but I’m sure I’ll be using that again. 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes, I have. 

Mr. HECK. Yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back, setting an excellent 

example for all of my colleagues. Just so everybody in the room understands, we’re working a deal up here where people filibuster for 

4 minutes and 50 seconds and then ask you a question that you 

need 3 minutes to answer. My patience is wearing thin. Ms. Fudge, 

you’re recognized. 

Ms. FUDGE. Certainly, I’m sure, Mr. Chairman, you’re not referring to me since I always give my time back. 

Chairman KLINE. Yes, you do. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much. And thank you all for being 

here today. 

Let me start with Dr. Biel. You mentioned the myriad negative 

effects of growing up poor and the mental and emotional health of 

children. As we look at today that school children living in poverty 

is almost 49 percent, can you expand on the intervention strategies 

that you think are necessary for Head Start to mitigate the nationwide future effects of these 49 percent of students growing up in 

poverty? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

Dr. BIEL. Absolutely. Thanks for the question, Ms. Fudge. I think 

we can think about several tiers of intervention, things that all 

kids living in poverty should have access to, and then things that 

kids who are living in poverty and are showing other risk factors 

or signs of real additional vulnerability should have access to. 

And I think that Head Start is a place where both tiers can really have a chance to be implemented. There need to be universal, 

sort of protections for kids who are living in poverty. And Head 

Start provides the opportunity for kids to get away from an environment that may be either associated with deprivation or with additional sort of, real stress. 

Kids need to get away from survival mode in order to progress 

developmentally. And that includes the full spectrum of social development, emotional development, academic development. None of 

those things can progress appropriately when kids are living moment to moment, survival to survival. 

And so Head Start provides that oasis. And by including parents, 

as we’ve all spoken about, that’s clearly a common theme here, by 

including parents’ input and also assessing and addressing parents’ 

capacities. That’s also a universal element that can be introduced 

within Head Start settings. There are going be a number of, not 

all of those 49 percent of kids living in poverty are going to have 

additional vulnerability. That’s sort of a baseline vulnerability. 

There’s additional vulnerability based on some of the other factors 

I’ve talked about like mental illness or exposure to trauma among 

kids who are very young. Those kids need additional intervention. 

And I’ll mention one really terrific example, which is the Trauma 

Smart model. The Head Start Trauma Smart model out of St. 

Louis, which took a really holistic approach to supporting families, 

training teachers, working individually with children who’d had a 

trauma exposure, and were in Head Start programs. And what 

they were able to do is really engineer a cultural shift within the 

Head Start site and their programs to really take trauma very seriously and to address it proactively in kids and families. And that 

sort of multi-dimensional approach is very, very promising and it 

really merits further support. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. BIEL. Sure. 

Ms. FUDGE. Ms. Mead, in your testimony you stated that Federal 

policies have added new requirements to Head Start programs 

without providing sufficient funding to meet them. If no congressional action is taken, what effect do you think another sequester 

cut will have on Head Start programs and the families that the 

program services? 

Ms. MEAD. Well, we saw in the last sequester that there were a 

significant number of families that lost access to Head Start services as a result. And that was both very problematic for those families that lost the services and for the children, both from a development and from families’ ability to work by having childcare perspective. But it was also very disruptive for the programs and, 

therefore, caused disruptions for the children who were still served 

in the programs as well. 

So, the absolute magnitude will depend on the actual numbers 

and the math that other people besides me need to do. But it is 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

a significant negative impact on those children, their families, and 

really all the children served in the programs as well. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Oh, you are absolutely my hero. Mr. Carter, 

you’re recognized. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you on 

the panel for being here. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m from the State of Georgia, and we’re 

very proud of our lottery-funded pre-K program that I hope all of 

you are aware of. It’s very similar, as you know, to the Head Start 

program. However, there are some differences. First of all, it was 

the first universal program in the Nation. But specifically between 

Head Start and the lottery-funded pre-K program, the pre-K program has shorter days. It also has, it has more educational requirements for the teachers. 

But, most significantly is the cost per child is several thousand 

dollars less than the Head Start program. Any idea why that would 

be, why that program would be so much more efficient and so less 

costly than the Head Start program? Dr. Nolan? 

Mr. NOLAN. I don’t know that program. I actually did spend 3 

years as the strategic planning consultant to the Department of Ed 

in Georgia. So I’m familiar with Georgia education a while back. 

And— 

Mr. CARTER. It must have been quite a while back. 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes, it was. Warner Rogers was superintendent. And 

he’s in a history book someplace. I think part of what happens with 

Head Start is, as we look at the additional services, those services 

cost money. And most preschool programs don’t have more in-depth 

services. So the mental health consultation, et cetera, that can become a factor. 

Another factor that we’re up against, for instance, as we compare 

efficiency—for instance, payroll for teachers, we’re, as people have 

identified, as much as $20,000 behind. One of the reasons is by 

both State licensing and best practice, the classrooms require a 

multiple of teachers in a room. I mean, I called our Federal program officer a while back and said we’re paying our teachers the 

same as public school teachers. She was enthralled until I said but 

we have to spread that salary among two and a half people. 

Mr. CARTER. That would kind of be my question. Is that, is the 

program so rigid that it can’t be, it can’t be intertwined into an existing State program? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. May I jump in? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes. 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Thank you. So I would agree with part 

of what Mr. Nolan started with. So Head Start is by law required 

to ensure these comprehensive services. And I think that definitely 

goes into this higher cost per child. 

One of the things that we have to start to think about is how, 

at the State, and the Federal, and the local level, we start to think 

about this collaboration that everyone here has talked about. So 

how do you use those resources more efficiently so that we raise 

quality for all the kids who are in our programs. But we also support teachers. And we support parents. And we make sure that 

kids are healthy, getting their dental care, and— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

Mr. CARTER. Okay. And I appreciate that. But my concern is the 

program is too rigid, that we’re not able to incorporate it into existing State programs that work quite well. And, I’m sorry, but I’ve 

got a limited amount of time. 

And I want to get into something, Dr. Biel, about the longer 

days. I was in the State legislature for many years. And during 

that time, we talked about extending the days in the pre-K program, but we really didn’t want to pay for nap periods. Are the extended days for 3- and 4- and 5- year olds, it seems they would lose 

focus after a while. 

Dr. BIEL. Thanks for the question. I think that it all depends 

upon how that time is spent. And I think that most kids in that 

age range are absolutely available for different kinds of learning 

across the day. If we’re talking about pre-literacy drilling for kids 

that are 3- 4- and 5- years old throughout the day, that’s absolutely, I think, probably an inappropriate allocation of time. 

But for other kinds of programs, because kids in that age range, 

whether they’re in a Head Start program or at a playground, are 

learning and exploring and developing all the time. And so if properly supported and scaffolded in an early childhood program, it can 

absolutely be time well spent. And they’ll have a better time to nap 

but it’s absolutely a time for learning as well. 

Mr. CARTER. But my point is, and the point has already been 

made, that you’re required to have certain teachers. I mean, if that 

extra time is just being spent for naps and we’re having to pay 

these teachers during that time, that’s not money well spent. Dr. 

Nolan, I know you wanted to say something. 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes, I want to support you. That for 3- year olds it’s 

different than 4- year olds. In 3- year olds, virtually all State licensing requires that they nap. So if we were to move a 3.5-hour 

day to a 6-hour day for a 3 year old, we would be paying for probably 2 hours of nap time. It’s different for 4- year olds. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Bonamici, you’re 

recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairman Kline and 

Ranking Member Scott. This has been an interesting and enlightening discussion. 

A couple of points to start, we’ve talked a lot about the role of 

parents and the importance of parents. In light of the fact that the 

United States is the only industrialized country in the world and, 

in fact, one of the only countries in the world that has no paid parental leave, I just want to emphasize the importance of the Early 

Head Start programs, whether they’re combined into one program 

or not, I just want to emphasize that. 

Dr. Nolan, I really appreciated your comment about the whole 

child, and especially as it relates to not making public schools, that 

transition—make public schools more like Head Start, not Head 

Start more like public schools. And I want to invite everyone to 

watch, I’m soon introducing, re-introducing a bipartisan whole 

child resolution, talking about the importance of educating the 

whole child. 

And that leads me to my question which is about nutrition. I’m 

working on legislation with Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

committee to make changes to the Child and Adult Care Food Program. And Head Start providers are participants in that program. 

So we know the importance of nutritious meals for children and 

also the importance of educating families about nutrition. So will 

you each make a comment about the role of nutrition and also how 

the nutrition programs can be improved? And I want to save time 

for another question. 

Mr. NOLAN. Sure. I’ll go quickly. One of the things that we pride 

ourselves on is we are, obviously, are a participant in the USDA 

program, but it’s only a foundation for what we do. In an 8-week, 

40-lunch period, we only repeat 3 lunches in 40 lunches. 

We have a chef on staff who is highly talented. One of the reasons is we have to manage for 300 kids eating, 81 specialized diets. 

So the whole nutrition area is absolutely critical to make sure 

that—the typical Head Start child gets the bulk of their daily nutrition while they’re at a Head Start center. They get a breakfast 

and a lunch and a snack. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dr. Biel, the importance of the healthy nutrition? 

Dr. BIEL. Sure. Another brief comment, thank you. I just wanted 

to emphasize that social and emotional health in early childhood is 

biological. And the experiences of early diversity, which I keep coming back to, they get under the skin. And when we think about the 

potential ramifications of effective programming for early kids, 

early childhood, that extends to risk factors for things like obesity 

and diabetes that I mentioned in my testimony. 

Kids who are exposed to early adversity that is unmitigated, unchecked, unbuffered, have inflammatory changes in their biology 

that extend across the lifespan and impact things like risk for obesity decades later. 

Ms. BONAMICI. That’s great. Thanks. Ms. Mead? 

Ms. MEAD. Obviously nutrition is important for young children’s 

development. And the Child and Adult Care Food Program is a crucial source of support for that, and not just for Head Start but for 

other early childhood programs. That said, it also is a program that 

has a lot of bureaucratic and paperwork requirements. And to the 

extent that in seeking to strengthen and improve that program, 

that can be done in a way that lessens that paperwork burden— 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that. I heard that when I visited a 

center. Ms. Sanchez Fuentes? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. I would ditto what Ms. Mead said. It’s 

reducing the administrative burden because it’s not just Head 

Start, it’s childcare, family childcare, lots of folks rely on it. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Now I want to ask you each again to 

make a comment about the need for improved coordination in the 

transition from Head Start to a K-12 program. What could we do 

to make that transition better? Dr. Nolan? 

Mr. NOLAN. We’re in, because I mentioned in my testimony that 

we’re already in a deep partnership with one of our major districts 

where we have, where we’re delivering 4- year old kindergarten 

services in a contract with the District, as well as Head Start services, that integration obviously becomes very natural. 

One of the challenges that we face is that the schools are not 

that focused on transition. So we have to work very hard to have 

meetings, to transfer information, to work with one another. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dr. Biel? 

Dr. BIEL. Thank you. I’ll just say briefly, here in Washington, 

we’re working locally with D.C. Public Schools, with early childhood education centers. And also with primary care to figure out 

how we can more effectively share information and share data in 

a way that’s going to really optimize kids’ outcomes. And that’s 

going to take a lot of work. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Sure. Ms. Mead? 

Ms. MEAD. I don’t have a lot to add to what they’ve said. And 

time is limited, so I’ll give it to Ms. Sanchez Fuentes to answer. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Ms. Sanchez Fuentes? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. I would suggest that there be some requirement on the public school system to have a very real relationship with their Head Start and their Early Head Start programs 

in order to share data, to share information, and to transition families appropriately into the public school. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. I yield back, Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Bishop, you’re recognized. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank the panel for 

being here today and sharing your testimony today. 

Dr. Biel, on the subject of outcomes, continued discussion on outcomes, you indicated that to truly improve outcomes, it’s critical to 

engage families and effectively collaborate with community resources to support diverse needs of families. I would like you to expand on that if you could please. 

And also as a father of three and I’m from a big family as well, 

my three kids are in the public schools right now, I’m a firm believer that the most consistent, that the family is the most important influence in terms of outcomes. 

And I’m wondering if, in your experience, you can tell us if 

there’s any engagement techniques, that a family can do better 

than others, that would help outcomes, just for my own and for all 

of our benefit, how we can best help our children? 

Dr. BIEL. Thank you for the question. I can speak about some experiences that I’ve been really impressed by, again, locally in my 

work in D.C. I think that there are things that schools, and this 

extends from early childhood education settings all the way into 

public elementary and higher grades as well. That send a message 

from schools to families that they’re welcome, that their input is 

important, that they’re included in part of the educational process. 

There’s a terrific organization here in town called the Flamboyan 

Foundation that sends all of its teachers in August out to all of 

their kids’ homes and does an hour sitting down with the parents 

in the family’s home, having conversation about what do we need 

to know about your child, what do we need to know about your 

family, here’s what you need to know about me as a teacher. And 

it gets the school year off to a tremendous start where there’s this 

feeling of really active collaboration. I think gestures like that are, 

much more than gestures actually, are very substantive. That’s one 

example. Dr. Nolan? 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes, I just wanted to confirm, that’s automatically 

part of Head Start. Home visits are multiple times during the year 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

so that we help to build those compassionate partnerships. And a 

suggestion to you, one of the things that I think we need to be looking at, there’s a wonderful book out called Creating Innovators by 

Tony Wagner from Harvard, where he talks about what do families 

do that result in children who can actually thrive in this information age. And a lot of it is continuing creativity. 

I mean, I did my doctoral work in creativity and thinking skills. 

We’re particularly good at killing creativity. There’s a fade-out effect among gifted children. Those who are most creative as they hit 

kindergarten as little as 18 months later have stopped asking questions. I mean, if you think about it, our way of taking in information is asking questions and reflecting on those answers. So things 

that we can do that maintain creativity as opposed to squelch it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Clark. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Scott. Thank you to all the panelists for being here today. This is 

a tremendous conversation. And particularly I want to pick up, Dr. 

Biel, on, you had mentioned a trauma program. I’m very interested 

in the effect of trauma and toxic stress on kids and families and 

on childcare providers. 

And I have filed some legislation really trying to promote the 

Head Start model. Because, as Dr. Nolan mentioned in his testimony, we’re seeing these sorts of startling rates of expulsion, which 

are really hard to believe in 3- and 4- year old children. But that’s 

what’s happening. And Head Start has taken a different—has really shown leadership in this area that’s very different than some of 

the statistics we’re seeing. 

I wondered if you could elaborate a little bit on what programs 

work. And then sort of a second part of this, being a leader in this 

trauma informed care, do you think there are training and technical assistance dollars that could be even better optimized by the 

Head Start programs? 

Dr. BIEL. Thanks very much for the question. I think that it’s, 

it’s critical that there be the opportunity within Head Start programs to do a frame shift away from thinking about kids’ behaviors 

in this early childhood school setting as being bad behaviors and 

toward understanding them. What does a 3- year old’s behavior tell 

us about the rest of that child’s life? Kids that are showing up in 

early childhood ed settings with behaviors like inability to pay attention, with aggression, with inability to sort of attend to a particular task, an age-appropriate task, that usually is an indicator 

that there’s something going on in that child’s environment that 

merits attention. 

And what ends up happening, unfortunately, when it’s not recognized as such, is that kids are punished, families are punished. 

Kids show up in my office with the idea that there are going to be 

medicines that are going to address these problems. When, in fact, 

what’s going on is that there’s a traumatic environment that kids 

are growing up in. 

And the program that I mentioned at, that’s in St. Louis, the 

Trauma Smart program, I think is particularly laudatory because 

it takes this multi-dimensional approach. It does this training for 

teachers. It helps teachers to understand, how do we really underCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

stand kids’ behavior in the setting of adversity—how can we reframe and rethink kids behavior and respond to it more effectively. 

That is accompanied by specific skills that teachers get in managing the classroom and responding one-on-one to kids who are 

showing up with difficult behaviors. 

And then there’s also this intervention for kids who are clinically 

in need that takes place within the Head Start setting, which is 

the most efficient and effective way to get at kids. 

And so, there’s some evidence-based psychotherapy techniques 

that if we use with young kids who have been traumatized really, 

really have proven to be effective and can be delivered in the Head 

Start setting. The Trauma Smart model incorporates all of those. 

Ms. CLARK. You mentioned in your testimony that Head Start 

providers tend to have more of that training and technical assistance, but that across a spectrum we need to have early educators 

and childcare providers receive that training. Do you think that 

Trauma Smart is the type of program that could be replicated 

across the system? 

Dr. BIEL. That’s certainly my hope. I think that there’s clearly 

been, as Ms. Mead testified, a real uptick in the level of expertise 

of educators at early childhood centers and Head Start. There still 

tends to be underdevelopment of professional skills specifically related to social and emotional needs of kids. There can be more done 

there. 

I think Trauma Smart is one example. I can mention others, in 

written testimony of other examples of programs I think are very 

promising from around the country. But there’s no shortage of 

promising programs. I think Trauma Smart is a particularly impressive one. But I can mention others as well. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 96820.021
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 96820.022
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 96820.023
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 96820.024
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 96820.025
57 

Ms. CLARK. Great. And do you think there is a way that Head 

Start could even do better in using those technical assistance dollars to address toxic stress and trauma? 

Dr. BIEL. I think there are a lot of ways that they could. One example that comes to mind is mental health consultation which 

ranges widely in the dose that a given Head Start Center receives. 

Some centers receive just a couple of hours. Others receive many 

more hours. And there probably is a minimum effective dose of 

mental health consultation from experts that allows centers to respond really impactfully to the problems they’re presenting in their 

population of kids. 

An hour a week is probably not enough time. And if time were 

allocated more generously, I think that there would be a really, 

really positive impact with that. 

Ms. CLARK. Great. Dr. Nolan? 

Mr. NOLAN. I would love to jump in on that one. One of the 

things that we’re up against, I think, as we think about what does 

it take to succeed in a Head Start classroom, is you have to remember that the classroom is also the child’s home. 

There was a study at Harvard where they were looking at in a 

third grade child’s life, what percentage of time that they spend in 

a classroom. And it ends up to be about 19 or 20 percent of their 

waking hours. Seventy-seven to 80 percent of time is about parents. We are in a situation where we take a basic teacher, 4-year 

degree, certified, licensed teacher, and give her 2 years worth of additional training in work in terms of how to work with children. 

There is no college or university right now who is preparing somebody to be in that intervention role in a classroom. We really have 

to work, more on that. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Sorry. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. 

Grothman. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. Thanks for all being here today. I 

think it was on January 5, I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. I’m glad we have four educators here. Under what section 

of the Constitution would it be permissible for us to, say, re-fund 

Head Start? Anybody have an answer to that question? For any of 

the four of you? Okay. 

Next, one of my pet peeves, I think it was Dr. Nolan, to a lesser 

degree, Dr. Biel, mentioned poverty. And it always bothers me a 

little because poverty is a material, a money-based definition. And 

I always think it’s far more family structure based as the disadvantage. In other words, I can think of children who have a very difficult background, who are materially well off, and children who 

don’t have a lot of material goods who are not well off. 

Certainly in other countries, there are people who come here who 

do fantastically well in our university system, who, by any standard, you know, square foot per person living space, food intake, 

electronic gadgets around the house, would be considered dirt poor 

by American standards doing very well. 

Dr. Nolan, you in particular talked about the disadvantage of 

poverty. Do you think poverty is a bigger problem for children or 

is it family structure? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

Mr. NOLAN. I don’t know how to weigh one against the other. 

Early Head Start, early in Head Start’s history, we went to poverty 

because it was measurable in financial terms. I believe that the 

issues that launched Head Start in 1964, are equal opportunity afflictions these days. I mean, we operate a fully socioeconomically 

blended childcare program where we’re serving upper middle class, 

middle class, and low income families all in one setting. Many of 

the issues— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Let me cut you off because you’re not answering 

my question. And I’ve only got 5 minutes. What is more important 

in a child’s life, that they have—and, again, observing people who 

do very well in our universities, who come here from, say, the Indian subcontinent, from Southeast Asia, when I talk to them, they 

have very little in material goods, far poorer than so-called American children in poverty. 

What is a bigger problem in a child’s life? The child’s family 

structure or how much material goods they have as a child? 

Mr. NOLAN. I think it comes back to the environment that they’re 

growing up in. The family structure is a huge issue. For instance, 

even in Head Start, those who are economically eligible are not 

automatically brought into Head Start. We look at the risk factors 

in a family, about 30 different risk factors, the kinds of things I 

think you’re alluding to. 

So those are the factors that we’re really dwelling on. As you well 

know, there are families with very little finances who are doing 

very well. They’re figuring out how to make it. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And you think it’s true then, if we want to improve the next, the lot of the next generation of children, we should 

maybe spend more time focusing on family structure and not as 

much time focusing on, say, things that money can buy? 

Mr. NOLAN. And I think that’s what Head Start does, is works 

on the family structure. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. That’s the more important. Now, one other quick 

thing, I’ve always kind of loved Head Start because as government 

explodes, it’s so rare that we ever find a program in which the 

studies show it has been unsuccessful. 

And, of course, I’m sure you’re familiar with the Brookings Institution studies. The Oklahoma studies on pre-K. I think just this 

week we came out with a study showing that Tennessee’s pre-K 

program was not effective. Nevertheless, we have four people up 

here who all say it’s a good thing. Could some of you comment a 

little on all these studies showing that pre-K programs, their benefits seem to fade a little, or to a degree— 

Mr. NOLAN. I’ll jump in. One of the things that I would emphasize to the committee is that there never in 50 years has been a 

study of Head Start that didn’t identify that Head Start graduates 

leave vastly improved from where they were when they arrived. 

For us to take a look at what happens four years later, is that really a statement about their preschool experience or is it a statement 

about public education? 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. So your thing is you’re saying Head Start 

is a success, it’s the other 13 years in public education that’s the 

problem? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

Mr. NOLAN. I think we have challenges at every level as we work 

with children in our society. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Head Start is the antithesis of social Darwinism, survival of the fittest. And I guess 

that’s what the four panelists are talking about today and that 

we’re dealing with the question of children. 

One of the discussions at the last reauthorization was the idea, 

and it’s not so prevalent a part of the discussion now, but the idea 

of block granting the Head Start funds to the State and creating 

that discretion for the State. I think some of you alluded to what 

your opinion of that process was when you talked about individuality. 

Let me start with Ms. Fuentes, if you don’t mind? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. So I would just 

state again I think it’s critical to maintain the Federal to local 

structure that Head Start currently has. It is important for Congress to think about other ways to improve the Head Start program. And we’ve heard lots of ideas here about flexibility, coordination, and of course, thinking about how to use resources more efficiently. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If you don’t mind, I have one more question for 

all four after this. Please, I don’t know, if someone has a different 

opinion than Ms. Fuentes? 

Ms. MEAD. I was just going to add that I think I would agree 

with Ms. Fuentes that block granting Head Start to the States is 

a bad idea, but that there are a variety of things short of that could 

help to improve coordination between the programs that States already have and Head Start. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And legislation could encourage that? 

Ms. MEAD. And that to the extent we can take the idea of block 

granting off the table, we can have a much better and more robust 

conversation about how States and Head Start work together. 

Mr. NOLAN. And this committee was astute in 2005, 2006, and 

2007 to not hand it to the States. Had it been handed to the States 

in the format that it had originally been proposed, it would have 

gone without the pesky performance standards. And something between 35 and 40 States essentially 2, 3 years later had moved into 

near bankruptcy. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. I was gonna also. I believe, and other 

indicators seem to point that out is that, poverty is still the biggest 

obstacle to a child’s success given all the ramifications that poverty 

brings with it, family issues, toxicity, questions that we’re talking 

about. 

And Head Start from the inception was a categorical response to 

that poverty question, to begin to deal with kids at an early age 

in preparation for kindergarten. That begs the question about resources and need. 

As we talk about reauthorization and the fine points that many 

of you have made today, we still, you know, the elephant in the 

room is the resources and the money that would go into Head 

Start. Could you respond in terms of need? And is it measurable 

now to say how much would be needed in the future, to address 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

the fact that somebody mentioned, you know, more than half of the 

kids in our traditional public schools right now and in public charters are low-income kids. So we’re still dealing and confronting that 

poverty question. 

Mr. NOLAN. On a local basis, I would tell you that our spending 

power is down about 18 percent over the last 11 years, at the same 

time that expectations are going up— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. But we’re talking about amounts that are national level right now, sir. So 18 percent higher than what we’re 

doing now would be your point, right? 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, essentially we’ve lost spending power. I mean, 

obviously we have two issues. One is how do we fund— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, let me get the other panelists to respond as 

well, sir, if you don’t mind. Any other panelist? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. I don’t know exactly the dollar amount, 

Mr. Grijalva. But I would suggest that the Federal Government, 

probably the Office of Head Start, has actually at some point run 

some numbers around what that looks like. I think Sara in her testimony mentioned that only half of the eligible kids receive services. And that’s even less in Early Head Start. So we have a ways 

to go. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Anything else? I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. Dr. Foxx. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to do a little 

follow up on Mr. Grothman’s question, toward the end of his questioning time. Dr. Nolan, and then I’ll invite all of you, if you want, 

to say something about this. We’re often told that intentions are 

what is important in terms of programs, not necessarily what the 

results are. 

Dr. Nolan, we know every study that’s been done shows that 

Head Start has no long-term effect. You said that though Head 

Start should be evaluated on what happens at the end of Head 

Start and not later than that, is the way I understood it. 

So should Head Start only be evaluated on its short-term effect? 

If that’s true, the administration, I think, has a great ideal of hypocrisy involved with its wanting to say to higher education, we 

want to know what your income is going to be, if we’re going to put 

money into it, we want to know what your income is going to be 

four years later, eight years later, in your lifetime if you get loan 

money. 

So why should we have a double standard for Head Start and 

other programs? 

Mr. NOLAN. And of course, we should not. There should be probably four different points where we’re evaluated. One is when the 

kids arrive. One is when the kids leave. Those are very important. 

We should be looking at what happens to them in early elementary 

school. What we also need to do, though, is to keep the support dosage up so that those gains don’t evaporate. 

And then we have a fourth one which is what happens with them 

over their lifetime. And the results there have not wavered. The research that’s been done with that, James Heckman, out of the University of Chicago, is very clear that the things that have socioeconomic impact are sustained through their public education expeCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

rience and show up in reduced incarceration, reduced teen pregnancy, et cetera. 

So I think the third piece, that we need to come back and get 

better at, is, you know, how do we examine what it is that is possible in our current public education system for a child who has 

been in that system for four years. How do we get better at that? 

Ms. FOXX. If others of you want to respond very quickly because 

I have a follow-up. 

Dr. BIEL. Just quickly picking up on Jim Heckman’s research is 

that the return on investment for early childhood programming 

that is high quality is between $4 and $9 for each dollar invested. 

Ms. FOXX. Does that take into consideration the amount of 

money that’s gone into the research? You know, I don’t think the 

government, I don’t think you can call it a return on investment. 

I think you have to talk about spending. But I do think our way 

of measuring the results on government spending is a little bit different from what happens in business in terms of return on investment. 

But how much do these studies do? And how reliable are the 

studies that are done long term? What’s your pool that you’re dealing with? I haven’t seen those studies. But what kind of pool are 

you dealing with? 

Dr. BIEL. Others can join in too. We can share some of those 

studies with the committee. And the studies are small. They’re not 

tens of thousands of kids. But they are very high-quality studies. 

Without disputing semantics, I absolutely would characterize it as 

investment in the future of our Nation’s kids. 

Ms. FOXX. And we don’t know—do we know from the studies 

whether we’re just getting a Hawthorne effect or if there’s a true 

impact from this? Has anybody compared the two? Is it a Hawthorne effect or is it simply actual changes that get made from the 

programs? 

Mr. NOLAN. I think, for instance, Dr. Heckman, who I actually 

get to introduce at a conference next week, is a pretty tough individual, not particularly prone to soft measures. He’s very much into 

looking at rates of incarceration and the cost of that, rates of teen 

pregnancy and the cost of that. So when we give you those references, I think you’ll see that, in fact, it is quite traceable. 

The reason the sample size is small is it’s a 40 year-long ongoing 

longitudinal study. So they’re looking at impacts over time. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Ms. Adams. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

And thank you to our witnesses as well. 

As a mother, a grandmother, and a former educator, I do recognize that early education provides students with what they need in 

their most critical learning years. More than 27 percent of the people in my district live below the poverty line. 

Students in low-income families already have obvious disadvantages that are exacerbated. When they arrive to kindergarten, 

they’re less prepared than middle- and high-income peers. Ms. 

Mead, in my district, we have a significant achievement gap. What 

role does early childhood education play in closing that achievement gap for low-income and minority students? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

Ms. MEAD. Obviously, early childhood plays a crucial role in closing that achievement gap. We know from research that between 

half and a third of the black-white achievement gap exists by the 

time children start 1st grade and that there’s a similarly large 

achievement gap for low-income kids compared to more affluent 

children. 

Early childhood programs, we also know, can help to narrow that 

gap by providing high-quality early learning experiences that mitigate from some of the challenges that children have had early in 

their lives and help to accelerate learning. Early childhood education programs cannot do that on their own. Though, they can put 

children on a solid foundation to start kindergarten. But obviously 

the public school system has to carry the ball the next 13 years. 

And so, ideally, what we want to see is high-quality early childhood coupled with a high quality K-12 experience. That said, we 

are increasingly seeing folks who started working to improve education outcomes in the K-12 system reaching down to try to get involved in early childhood because they’re seeing that they can 

make an even bigger difference for children if they started earlier. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. In my home State of North Carolina, the 

General Assembly has put early childhood education on the back 

burner. I was a part of that General Assembly for more than 20 

years. 

Our North Carolina pre-K program and childcare subsidies are 

funded at inadequate levels. And we have long waiting lists. For 

places like North Carolina, can you speak to the important role 

that Head Start funding plays in ensuring that low-income students have access to early childhood education in the face of reduced State spending? 

Ms. MEAD. I mean, Head Start plays a crucial role in early childhood education, particularly in the many States that, while you 

have good reasons to be disappointed with your General Assembly, 

there are many States that do far less for young children than 

North Carolina does. 

And so in States that don’t have any form of publicly funded preK, Head Start is crucial as the primary and sometimes sole program serving our poorest children who are at most risk of school 

failure later in life. And that is an absolutely crucial role. 

Mr. NOLAN. And a quick comment on that. One of the pluses of 

Federal Head Start is it has been relevant stable over time. And 

State funding tends to be quite more volatile. So you had Ohio that 

went up to $100 million invested in Head Start aged kids. And it 

went down to zero. So I think one of the things is that stability. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Thank you for that. As a follow-up, would you 

say that the reduced spending has had a negative effect on Head 

Start programs? Ms. Mead? Mr. Nolan? Any of the witnesses? 

Mr. NOLAN. Well, we’re struggling because obviously we’ve had 

years where we can’t even give a cost of living increase to staff. 

When we had one, it was .72 percent, which is almost an embarrassment. So, trying to retain staff is a difficult thing. And as we 

keep having higher and higher standards, my teachers are 4-year 

degree teachers who can go elsewhere for $20,000 to $30,000. 

In all of my management staff of six people, we have seven master’s and a PhD across there. We’re here because we’re part of the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

investment. And we talk about the cost of Head Start, some of that 

is paid on the backs of our vast number of underpaid staff. 

So I think we’ve got to look for the long term how do we make 

progress with that. But right now, people stay kind of because of 

their passion and values. If you’re into big bucks, you don’t come 

to Head Start to work. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. Would anybody else like to respond? 

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Allen. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

what you do for our young people and our children. 

You know, we all agree that it’s critical, development occurs in 

the early childhood. And we can’t underestimate the value of loving, safe, and nurturing homes which is so critical. I have visited 

many of the childhood Head Start programs in our district. And I’m 

fascinated by the care and love and attention that the children are 

getting. In fact, to the extent that, in some cases, you almost don’t 

want to let these children go home because it’s not exactly that way 

at home. 

You know, my concern is what has, I mean obviously, the numbers are growing in Head Start, at least in our State and in my 

district. I mean, the need is there. And it’s ever increasing. And, 

of course, we all, I think, would agree that Head Start is needed 

because the child is not getting its needs met at home. 

Have you thought about how to change that cycle? I mean, obviously, Head Start could take over and be the family needed. But 

that creates cost. And it creates other problems. How do we change 

this cycle? 

Mr. NOLAN. I mean, one of the things that I would encourage you 

to think about, we’ve not talked a whole lot about Early Head Start 

other than to identify that program for pregnant moms, infants, 

and toddlers up to age 3 has only got 5 percent coverage at this 

point in terms of who we can serve. 

One of the things that we work very hard in my program, come 

back to my on-the-ground experience, we have a home-based Early 

Head Start where we go into the home and work with parents. Basically, we enroll the parent who happens to have either a pregnancy, infant, or toddler in their lives and work with them to build 

their capacity. We do not want to become the substitute. What we 

want to do is build capacity in that parent to be the best, most deliberate nurturer of that young child’s life. 

And I think the more we do that—so more investment in Early 

Head Start, continued investment because part of what we’re looking at in this proposed rulemaking, if we pulled back on parent 

services at the same time that we want to propose deepening them, 

that’s not the right direction. 

Another issue that the chairman raised in his introduction was 

we’re running a risk right now under noticed proposed rulemaking 

of losing between 125,000 and 145,000 slots at a point where that 

becomes one of the most incredibly expensive ways to fund quality 

improvement. And we must have quality improvement. We can’t do 

it by serving vast numbers of fewer children. 

Mr. ALLEN. It seems to be a problem with motivation as well. In 

other words, you know, when I grew up, poverty was a motivation 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

to work hard, to find a skill, to get a good education. And the motivation is somehow missing today. Poverty is, sometimes is a choice. 

And it runs cycle to cycle and generation to generation. And, you 

know, like I said, these programs are great. 

But at some point in time, how do we figure out how to motivate, 

and you’re looking at the thorn of ages here. How do we psychologically motivate these folks to say you know what, I can do better 

than this. We have got a lot of examples in this Nation of people 

who have come out of extreme, very difficult circumstances. 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. And that’s an area where we need to be very 

deliberately working harder. One of the things that Dr. Biel will, 

I’m sure, confirm is, many of the families that we’re dealing with— 

we’re dealing with high percentages of depression. The gap for 

some of these parents from where they are to independence is 

huge. We need to put more energy into that. 

I can’t motivate anybody. But I can create conditions that enable 

them to be motivated. And we see that when they start to get, we 

have a program that we call Soaring, which is a self-esteem building program that never says the word self-esteem for 8 weeks. But 

people going through that emerge with a project. And they start to 

get a project mentality and a sense of possibility. And the parents 

don’t have the models they need. We need to help the parents become the models that their children need. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the 

witnesses for your presence here today and, of course, the work 

that you do. 

Dr. Nolan, you mentioned that there are four sort of evaluation 

points along the continuum with respect to Head Start participants, I gather the moment you arrive in Head Start, the moment 

you depart, your elementary school experience, and then lifetime 

results. Is that correct? 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And of those four points along the continuum, 

would you agree that whether there’s been an impact over the 

course of your life in terms of outcome, that’s the most important 

factor as to whether the investment in Head Start has yielded a 

return? 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And you referenced the Heckman study. And I believe Dr. Biel also referenced it. And there was some question as 

to whether, you know, the study was, I guess, legitimate in terms 

of how it was conducted and whether there was some reliability as 

it relates to the results. 

And so I just wanted to ask a few questions about that now. 

Now, it was a longitudinal study, in other words, it covered a period of multiple decades in terms of— 

Mr. NOLAN. Actually continuing too. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And it’s continuing. And was that, is it a quantitative study or was it a qualitative study? 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes. I mean, at some level or another, the measures 

tend to be countable things like incarceration, et cetera. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

One of the things that we’re faced with, and it’s true for everything that this committee addresses, we tend to measure that 

which is easiest to measure, as opposed to that which is most important. So it’s harder for us to look at, for instance, Mr. Allen’s 

comment around motivation. It’s hard to measure motivation. So 

you try to convert that to the accomplishment of landing and retaining a job. So you go to those kinds of measures. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Would you say in the academic context the results 

are widely accepted as statistically significant? 

Ms. MEAD. Can I address this in a slightly different way? On 

that, the body of evidence for the effectiveness of high-quality early 

childhood education, is probably the most robust body of evidence 

for anything we do in education. We know more about it than we 

do about high school, elementary school, and so forth. 

And that evidence comes from a variety of sources. It comes from 

what we know about child development, the type of work that Dr. 

Biel was talking about and does. It comes from studies that were 

started in the 1960s with small scale model programs with a very 

high quality randomized design and continue to follow those people 

into adulthood today. 

It also comes from big population studies where they compared 

people after the fact who’d attended Head Start to other folks and 

found improvements in life outcomes you know, in 40s and 50s and 

later. 

And it comes most recently from the body of studies that we have 

on high-quality State-funded pre-K programs where we’re now seeing those programs produce results for kids at scale that lead to 

meaningful changes in their outcomes through the elementary 

school grades. We have to look at the evidence on Head Start next 

to and against that entire body of evidence about early childhood 

education. And the conclusion that we can draw from that is that 

Head Start makes a difference in both skills at kindergarten entry 

and adult life outcomes, but that it’s not producing the magnitude 

of gains that kindergarten entry of the very highest quality pre-K 

programs. 

And, as a result, we are not seeing the level of changes once kids 

progress through elementary school that we would like see. But because we’re seeing other programs do it and because we’re seeing 

the best Head Start programs do it, we know it’s possible. We just 

need to figure out how to get there. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And, Dr. Biel, in terms of sort of those life 

outcomes that the literature seems to suggest clearly lead to positive results for Head Start participants, if we could just kind of 

quantify that based on, I guess, the Heckman study or any other 

study that has been done. 

So is it fair to say that participation in Head Start generally 

yields a reduction in the likelihood of incarceration? 

Dr. BIEL. Yes. And just a note about Dr. Heckman’s methodology. 

He won a Nobel Prize in economics. He’s a very, very rigorous researcher. And his methods are fairly unassailable. The sample size 

is small because, as Dr. Nolan pointed out, these are 40-year studies. It’s hard to follow a large group of kids for that long, as they 

become, as they go into middle age. But the methods are quite 

strong. And incarceration is one of the outcomes, yes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So reduction in the likelihood of incarceration. 

Would reduction in the likelihood of teen pregnancy also be a result 

of participation in Head Start? 

Dr. BIEL. Yes. Potentially. Dr. Heckman’s studies do, I’m sorry 

to interrupt. Followed several model early childhood programs that 

share an enormous amount in common with the best Head Start 

programs. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And, lastly, would reduction in dependency 

on government benefits through adulthood also be a result of participation in a high quality Head Start program? 

Dr. BIEL. I think absolutely, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Dr. Roe. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. I’m sorry I was late, I was over fixing the 

VA this morning, probably unsuccessfully. 

I want to thank you all for your investment in the most important resource we have which is the future of this country which are 

our children. No question about it. 

And I know, Dr. Biel, you stated in your paper, and I did read 

all of your testimony, while Head Start providers are important, 

contributors to a child’s health and development, the family is the 

first and most consistent influence. And schools are part time, families are all the time. 

And I have a next door neighbor, that I’m going to share with 

you for just a second, who is a principal of an elementary school, 

70, 80 percent free and reduced lunch. I saw her show up one day 

with four kids, four Hispanic children, from about 4 to 9 or 10 next 

door. I said Sharon, what are you up to? 

Well, the mother had six children. They were all behind. They 

were about to go into State custody. And my next door neighbor 

took these four children in and began to nurture them. I’ve 

watched that over the last 1 year. Those children with proper parenting have made up two grades in school. It is absolutely amazing 

to see what that type of influence can make. 

And I think one of the things, Dr. Nolan, you brought up earlier, 

we’ve all had the question did the outcomes, if you go to Head 

Start, why do the benefits seem to evaporate? And the findings of 

the recent Vanderbilt study in the Tennessee pre-K program were 

similar to the Head Start impact studies. They show evidence of 

important initial gains in several critical aspects of child development, but that such gains may not be sustained through the third 

grade. 

Well, I dug a little deeper. And if you look at a low-income child 

versus a high-income child, by the time they’ve hit pre-K, they’ve 

heard, the high-income child has heard 30 million more words 

probably. And so they’re at a language disadvantage. If you take 

that child, as Dr. Nolan said, who’s in a high performing Head 

Start program, is doing very well when they leave. They all go to 

school. And they all have a summer break. And if you look at the 

reading skills of a child—when a low-income child, when they exit 

summer, they lose a month of reading. 

And so no matter what you do in pre-K, by the time they’re in 

the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th grade, they’re a year behind. And many of 

them drop out of school. So I think that upstream there’s no quesCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

tion that there’s some benefit there. I think you can improve. The 

question is how do you sustain any benefits that you have? I think 

that’s what I heard you all say. 

And I guess the recent NPRM seeks to make Head Start, I want 

to answer this question, more like a pre-K program. Given this recent study, why would we seek to make Head Start more like a 

pre-K program? Isn’t the inherent design of Head Start that it’s 

tailored to meet individual and comprehensive needs of each child? 

Anybody could take that on. 

Mr. NOLAN. I would love to jump in on that. Wisconsin is the national poster child on 4-year-old kindergarten. It’s been in our constitution since 1848. The 4K program that my grandsons went to 

is 102 years old. And 4-year-old kindergarten varies dramatically. 

But in most cases, it’s still mostly like 5-year-old kindergarten. In 

Head Start, we have a max group size of 20 kids, two to three 

adults working in that room with those kids. Down the street, in 

our large urban district in Milwaukee, we have classrooms with between 28 and 32 kids, 4-year-old, for 5 hours with one teacher. 

And at some point or another, whoever has decided that that’s 

a more desirable model for Head Start eligible kids really doesn’t 

understand how kids learn. And I think part of what we’ve got to 

be very careful of is how do we take best practices and extend 

those forward in terms of a child’s learning, not just for Head Start 

but for all children. 

Ms. MEAD. I also think it’s important not to view the results that 

were released recently from Tennessee as representative of everything we know about State pre-K programs. We have seen positive 

results from programs in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Georgia, North 

Carolina that are in many cases sustained over time. So it’s not the 

case— 

Mr. ROE. Not to interrupt, this was a, I’ve spoken to the author 

of this. This is a Vanderbilt study. 

Ms. MEAD. And I’m a Vanderbilt alum. 

Mr. ROE. They might take umbrage with that. They felt like they 

did a rigorous study. 

Ms. MEAD. I am not questioning that they did a rigorous study. 

But it’s one piece of evidence. And so it doesn’t reflect all State preK programs. There’s variation across State pre-K programs. And 

we need to learn from that. We cannot conclude, based on this one 

study, that State pre-K programs never work. In fact, we have a 

lot of evidence that they do in the right context. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. We don’t often get 

a prestigious institution like Vanderbilt brought on the carpet like 

this; this has been very interesting. Mr. Rokita, you’re recognized. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for hosting this 

hearing. 

As we look ahead to reauthorizing Head Start and writing language, et cetera, to that end and as chairman of the Kindergarten 

through 12th Grade Education Subcommittee on this committee, 

I’m going to get a little bit wonky. Ms. Sanchez Fuentes, if you 

don’t mind, for a minute. During your time at the Department, you 

oversaw the creation of the DRS, the Designation Renewal System, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

developed because of a requirement that the reauthorization of 

2007 put in. 

And I wasn’t here to hear your testimony, so I apologize if you 

covered this. But I would like to hear from you whether you believe 

this recompetition has been effective. Has it enhanced the program 

integrity, increased competition, and improved quality of providers? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the 

question. I actually haven’t talked about it. 

So I would say that, yes, it absolutely did increase quality over 

time. We do have programs who I think probably wouldn’t have 

taken a second look. Say I’m going to take a second look, at what 

I’m doing and think about how I can do things better and more efficiently. 

In terms of, and I think Dr. Nolan talked about this a little, 

there are some things to reconsider with regards to the Designation 

Renewal System. And I would encourage Congress to think about 

what the next steps are for the next iteration. 

But I would emphasize that competition is important. It has 

forced Head Start programs across the country to think about what 

they’re doing and also to be able to talk about what they’re doing. 

So what are the things that they’re doing that are making a difference for the kids and the families in their community. 

Mr. ROKITA. What specifically what would you like to see in your 

dream DRS? 

Ms. SANCHEZ FUENTES. In my dream? So I don’t have the answer 

to that. I actually, sir, have been thinking about that probably for 

two years. But I would definitely say that we need to rethink what 

those triggers are. I will, say very honestly, that we did the best 

that we could at the time with the information. We have learned 

some things over the last three iterations of competition. I think 

they’re on their fourth now. 

And it’s time to take a look at the data. So who did well, why, 

who are the new players who have come into Head Start and why, 

and open it up, think about what the triggers are, think about who 

should go into competition. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Thank you. Any other of the members of the 

panel wish to comment on my question? No. Okay. 

Dr. Nolan, I was told about an exchange between you and Ms. 

Foxx here on the committee about how we should be judged, on 

short term versus long term. And I heard that was quite good. I’m 

not sure if other members of the panel got to comment on that 

though. Does anyone else want to comment on how we should be 

judging this program? Should it be in the short term or the long 

term? 

Dr. BIEL. Thank you. I’ll just say briefly that I think it actually 

should be both and that we should think about, I guess this picks 

up on some of the earlier questions as well, we should think about 

really high-quality early childhood education as an onramp. 

It’s not an inoculation against all the future difficulties that kids 

may run up against either in the educational system or in other 

aspects of their lives. 

Dr. BIEL. But it’s a really, really critical onramp, and so the 

short-term measurements are really important. And what could be 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

important than the long-term measurements that we were discussing a minute ago? 

Mr. ROKITA. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. NOLAN. And at a program level, we’re measuring constantly. 

We’re using data. One of the early pieces of testimony was around 

the necessary use of data. I mean, we’re using data to inform our 

practice on a constant basis. And I absolutely agree with Dr. Biel, 

it should be all of the above. And we need to get better at measuring how our expenditures become investments. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the panel. 

I thank the chair. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. It looks like everyone has had a chance to ask questions. 

Let me recognize Mr. Scott for his closing comments. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we’ve heard a lot of very good testimony, and I want to 

thank our witnesses. This has been extremely helpful. We have, I 

think, a consensus that Head Start works, that the long-term benefits are there, and that the return on investment by reduced incarceration, reduced teen pregnancy, reduced remedial education, 

those reduced costs are a lot more than the cost of the Head Start 

program. 

There has been a little discussion about the fading results, but 

I think the long-term results are clearly there, and some of the 

fade could be the summer slide that Head Start can’t cure or poor 

follow-up in elementary school or other students just catching up. 

When you see the other students doing well, they have an incentive 

to catch up. 

But I think by any stretch of the imagination, all of our witnesses, invited by Democrats and Republicans, have unanimously 

endorsed the long-term benefits of the Head Start program. And so 

there appears to be good bipartisan support for the program. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as we 

reauthorize this very successful program. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to thank the witnesses. I agree with my friend and colleague, Mr. Scott, very excellent panel. You are indeed experts. 

You’ve helped us a lot. 

I think there is agreement, probably, I don’t know if it’s 100 percent, but very bipartisan agreement that Head Start is a very, very 

important program for underprivileged, for poor kids. We want to 

see it succeed. 

There are differences, and we heard about those here today, 

where there are some pre-K programs that are doing very, very 

well and some not so well, in and out of Head Start, because some 

Head Start programs are doing really well and some maybe not so 

well. We’ve heard about the success of competition, and we may 

want to look at how to make that more successful. 

So we’ve got a lot of work to do here, but the panel has been 

very, very helpful. I want to thank you for your testimony and for 

your active and lively engagement. And I’m sorry about Vanderbilt. 

There being no other business, the committee is adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Nolan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 96820.026
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 96820.027
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 96820.028
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 96820.029
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 96820.030
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 96820.031
76 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER