Vermont AG Clark: Joins Multistate Head Start Rule Opposition

• Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark joined a multistate coalition opposing an HHS proposed rule to cut Head Start regulations.
• The proposed rule would eliminate over 1,400 regulations, including those for child-to-staff ratios, safety, and services for children with disabilities.
• It would also impose an English-only mandate and reduce the administrative cost cap from 15% to 5%.
• The coalition argues the changes would create state-by-state disparities and increase state agency workload, despite HHS citing state discretion.
• HHS acknowledges potential outcomes like larger class sizes, fewer staff, and reduced services, leading to poorer educational outcomes.

The potential ramifications of the HHS Head Start proposed rule extend far beyond administrative adjustments, threatening to dismantle a nationwide system of care that has operated with bipartisan support for over 60 years.

Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark has formally joined a broad multistate coalition in expressing strong opposition to a proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that seeks to significantly reduce regulations governing the Head Start program. This collective action involved submitting a detailed comment letter outlining concerns about the potential impact of the HHS Head Start proposed rule. Head Start, a cornerstone early childhood education program, has historically aimed to disrupt cycles of poverty by offering comprehensive support—encompassing emotional, social, health, nutritional, and educational needs—to young children from low-income backgrounds.

The proposed changes, if implemented, would fundamentally alter the long-standing and evidence-backed Head Start Program Performance Standards. The coalition, co-led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, argues that these revisions would undermine the program's effectiveness and the well-being of its participants. Attorney General Clark's participation underscores a widespread concern among state legal officers regarding the future of this critical federal initiative.

Beyond Vermont, California, and New Mexico, the coalition includes attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, alongside the Governor of Kentucky. This extensive group highlights the broad, national implications perceived in the HHS Head Start proposed rule.

The core of the multistate coalition's opposition centers on the proposed elimination of over 1,400 existing early childhood education regulations designed to safeguard enrolled children, pregnant individuals, and their families. These regulations form the bedrock of the Head Start Program Performance Standards, which have guided the program for decades. Among the critical protections slated for removal are requirements for early support and coordinated services for children with disabilities, maximum child-to-staff ratios, and essential safety standards, including safe transportation practices.

Further proposed changes include the removal of mandates for parent committees, staff credentialing and training requirements, and research-based timelines for crucial health, developmental, and vision screenings. The HHS Head Start proposed rule also seeks to eliminate minimum hours of service, lift the prohibition on expulsions, and remove limits on suspensions, alongside ending the ability of families to self-attest for eligibility determinations. Additionally, the proposal introduces an English-only mandate and revises the cap on allowable administrative and development costs, reducing it from 15% to a mere 5%, while simultaneously adding other requirements deemed burdensome by the coalition.

While HHS characterizes its proposed rule as an effort to grant greater discretion to states and allow programs to adapt to local conditions, the coalition contends that the practical outcome would be the creation of significant state-by-state disparities in early childhood education and care. This approach, they argue, would substantially increase the workload and financial burdens on state agencies responsible for overseeing these programs, rather than fostering localized improvements.

The potential ramifications of the HHS Head Start proposed rule extend far beyond administrative adjustments, threatening to dismantle a nationwide system of care that has operated with bipartisan support for over 60 years. Head Start is particularly vital for children who frequently encounter barriers to accessing quality early education, such as those with disabilities, children experiencing homelessness, migrant children, children learning English, and children from low-income households. The proposed changes risk undermining these children's ability to learn and prepare for success in school.

Even HHS itself has acknowledged several adverse consequences that could arise from the rule's implementation. These include the likelihood of larger class sizes, a reduction in the number of teachers, coaches, and home visitors, and shorter program days. Furthermore, the agency anticipates reduced health, dental, and mental health services for participants. These outcomes are projected to lead directly to poorer educational results for children and impose additional strain on states' public health and welfare systems, contradicting the program's foundational goals. The Attorney General Charity Clark Head Start rule opposition highlights the critical importance of maintaining robust early childhood education regulations to protect vulnerable populations and ensure equitable access to foundational services across the nation.

Compliance officers and legal counsel for early childhood education providers or state agencies administering Head Start programs must track the finalization of this HHS rule, as it will drastically alter program performance standards, potentially increasing compliance burdens and creating state-level disparities in service delivery.

Source: Original reporting via Attorney General Clark's office.