Sara,

I just can't agree with your assessment that Head Start programs should not be in the stimulus because they can't ramp up that quickly. I just got off the phone with the Board Chair of our association, Janet Anderson, and she said programs would have no trouble immediately putting new dollars to work. She responded to your claims by pointing out the following information collected by our association over the past few weeks:

1. Programs in the state of Washington have long waiting lists. As you can imagine the Seattle area has very long waiting lists. The need is out there. But it is not just in large cities. An example comes from Doug Lehrman in Vancouver, WA in the southern part of our state near Portland. He wrote to me that he has 114 children on his Head Start waiting list, and 43 children on his Early Head Start waiting list. He also states that due to the downturn in the economy his waiting list has increased from the previous year. Here is an excerpt from what he wrote:

"All of these numbers represent a significant increase in waiting list size since last year. Partly, that's due to the fact that we have a better manager over our outreach and recruitment now than we did last year, but much of it is due to economic conditions and the need for these programs in our community. We are only funded to serve about 26% of eligible children in our service area."

2. Like many programs across the country, Washington is no different in trying to find qualified staff to work for less than stellar pay. But with a $3 billion increase in Head Start funding, programs would have resources to pay teachers more and to put together an appropriate professional development plan for all staff as well as a COLA. I am not sure I agree that programs will have trouble finding qualified staff on short notice. If anything the new funds will make it easier for programs to attract and retain qualified staff.

3. Programs do have space to serve additional children. While we wish we had more space, Janet told me that many programs have the flexibility to add another part day session to their existing programming. This would make it possible to serve more children without any need to locate new space. Furthermore, programs may choose to move from part day services to full day services with new dollars. Not only will this benefit the learning opportunities for children, but would serve to help parents find work.

4. Systems building. You also mention that if Head Start and child care were to recieve an influx of new funding this would undermine efforts at improving systems. I would challenge this assumption on several grounds:

a. States are the leading arenas for system building. In the state of Washington, for instance, we have a new Department of Early Learning and a public private partnership called Thrive by Five. Funds from the Gates Foundation are being used to test models and to identify systems that work.

b. Without a well funded Head Start system building is not possible. If Head Start is funded as it should be it can continue to serve as the model for the current pre-k programs now coming onto the scene. Isn't Educare, Ok pre-k, Abbott etc...offshoots of Head Start in one form or another? Policy makers keep forgetting this when they are looking to develop something new. Head Start has always been the model for innovation and quality. No big suprise that almost every "new" model program is based on the Head Start model. Providing new funds to Head Start will allow the program to continue to be the anchor and foundation for any future system building.

c. I seriously doubt that the energy for system building will be gone or dissiapate if Head Start recieves a large increase. I think readers of this blog know that there is a considerable amount of momentum across the country for a more robust and higher quality early learning system. If anything at all new funds sent to Head Start could build on the conversation not hinder it.

5. In your comments you are essentially saying that if we call new funding for Head Start/child care a "stimulus" it will take the focus off of the benefits to children.

-First, let me say that I think your argument is overstated. Do you really think that if Head Start recieves an increase in the stimulus suddenly the consensus around the importance of the benefits of early learning on children will dissapear? Do you really think if Head Start was funded via a stimulus bill it would undermine the current thinking in early childhood circles. That seems highly unlikely. I really doubt it that policymakers will start viewing early childhood programs as just a jobs program.

-Second, I have heard Speaker Pelosi talk about new funds for Head Start as both a stimulus and a downpayment on human capital. Check out Late Edition last Sunday for example. I don't see why it can't be both and still be included in the stimulus package.

-Third, Head Start is a benefit to the child, but we often forget the work done with parents. Head Start helps parents find critical social services, locate job training programs, and in many cases find work. I don't think it is such a bad thing to remind folks that Head Start does helps children and their families. So yes it is both an early learning program but also a job training program and hub for social services.

I urge to reconsider your position. And I ask your readers to go to www.saveheadstart.org and get behind including Head Start funding in the stimulus package.

It is difficult to understand the arrogance of this article. It sounds like the priviledged class of advocates has lost touch with what is happening to many families in our communities. Lack of jobs, adequate safe housing, food and related items has huge numbers of families living from day to day. Do you really believe that before you can create slots one needs to over-educate caregivers to the value of their work. Please understand that most people who will care for children are also open to improving what they do as they do it.