Two months ago, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced proposed changes to Head Start that would dismantle several regulations of the federally funded program, which provides early education, health, and parenting services to more than 700,000 low-income children from birth to 5 and their mothers.
Kennedy said on Aug. 6 that the changes would “expand access, reduce red tape, and refocus the program on its core mission of preparing America’s most vulnerable children for success.”
But critics denounced the proposed changes, arguing that they would strip the program of essential components that help children and families thrive. More than 35,000 comments about the proposal were submitted online during the 60-day comment period that ended Tuesday.
Head Start advocates warn that de-regulation and other proposed changes could cause sweeping harm to programs, the teachers who work there, and the families they serve. Here’s a glance of who will be most affected if the proposed changes go through.
- How would the proposed Head Start changes affect children in rural areas?
- How would the proposed Head Start changes affect children with disabilities?
- How would the proposed Head Start changes affect dual-language learners?
- How would the proposed Head Start changes affect teachers?
How would the proposed Head Start changes affect children in rural areas?
Seventy percent of young children in remote, rural areas live in a “licensed childcare desert,” according to the Center for American Progress. For these communities, a Head Start program can be a change-maker.
“In remote areas such as those in Pennsylvania, oftentimes, Head Start may be the only early-care and education program in that rural community,” Kara McFalls, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Head Start Association, told Education Week in August. “It’s really setting up children and families for success.”
Beyond early childcare and education, Head Start also offers wraparound services including health screenings, dental care resources, and nutrition support to children enrolled in the program—all of which also tend to be in short supply in remote areas.
The Trump administration’s proposal would limit the amount of money Head Start centers can spend on administrative overhead costs to 5%, down from 15%. Advocates say that change would present challenges to all centers—affecting, for instance, staff salaries and class sizes. It could force some centers to close, potentially creating or expanding childcare deserts in remote, rural areas.
Wendy Swingle, the executive director at Bradford Tioga Head Start in Mansfield, Pa., said the 5% administrative cap would render her center unable to continue providing bus transportation as it does now—with a bus driver who holds a commercial driver’s license, a paid aide, and a five-point harness seat for every child.
“If we need to pull funds,” Swingle told EdWeek in August, “that [transportation] will be something we will need to eliminate.”
Without transportation, most of the students—many whose families do not own cars—would not be able to reach the center, she said.
How would the proposed Head Start changes affect children with disabilities?
Advocates say the proposed changes to Head Start regulations could result in negative consequences for children with disabilities—both diagnosed and undiagnosed.
Currently, Head Start must administer developmental screenings within 45 days of a child enrolling in the program. If the results show that a child has or is at risk for a developmental delay, Head Start staff must then connect the family to appropriate resources. The Trump administration’s proposed policy changes would eliminate this requirement.
Similarly, the proposed changes would no longer require Head Start programs to reserve 10% of enrollment spots for children with disabilities or to actively seek to fill these spots from children in their respective communities.
Head Start’s current standards prohibit expelling children due to their behavior. Proposed federal changes would eliminate that standard. This change would likely be disproportionately harmful to children with disabilities, either diagnosed or undiagnosed. A child who struggles to communicate verbally, for instance, may resort to screaming or lashing out physically in order to get attention or from sheer frustration. In turn, this behavior can lead to disciplinary action, including suspension or expulsion.
Statistics bear this out. Children with disabilities make up 23% of preschool enrollment but 74% of all preschool expulsions, according to a 2026 report by Arizona State University’s The Children’s Equity Project.
Many Head Start programs enroll a disproportionate percentage of children with disabilities, likely because of their inclusive policies.
“At my current program, 30% of our children have diagnosed and undiagnosed disabilities. We have had to increase staffing to 2-3 teachers for every 15-17 children to ensure the safety and maximum benefit for all children,” Janice Deguchi, the executive director of Seattle’s Neighborhood House, wrote in a public comment about the proposed changes.
How would the proposed Head Start changes affect dual-language learners?
Proposed federal changes would mandate English-only instruction in Head Start programs except for American Indian and Alaska Native programs, whose languages are seen as furthering their tribal heritage.
Experts estimate that this policy change would affect nearly 18,800 Head Start classrooms, where half or more of children enrolled are dual-language learners. A strong body of evidence shows that students who speak a language other than English at home become proficient in English most readily when instruction builds on their home language—not eliminates it. For years, Head Start programs have encouraged bilingual instruction.
“Removing bilingual support does not accelerate English acquisition,” commenter Judy Bryngelson wrote to the federal government. “It disrupts a child’s ability to engage with content and can alienate families who are trying to be partners in their child’s education.”
How would the proposed Head Start changes affect teachers?
The Trump administration’s proposed changes would affect Head Start teachers both directly and indirectly. Removing strict staff-to-child ratios and limits to class sizes would immediately increase teachers’ workloads and reduce their ability to provide the type of individualized attention that smaller staff-to-student ratios allow.
Caps on administrative budgets, down from 15% to 5%, could affect teachers, too. Teacher salaries may not see cuts immediately. But a smaller operating budget could result in eventual cuts to support staff, professional learning opportunities, or any number of resources that allow teachers to adequately perform their jobs.
“The proposal does not directly change salaries, but teacher qualifications and compensation are closely connected,” said Swingle, the executive director of the Head Start program in Pennsylvania. “Recruiting and retaining highly qualified educators requires competitive wages. If qualification expectations decline over time, there is concern that compensation will be affected as well.”
Wrote one anonymous commenter on the public comment page: “Teachers are already underpaid, under-appreciated, and overwhelmed. By making these changes you are leaving them with more kids, more responsibilities, and less resources.”
Even former Head Start family members weighed in.
“Please do not decrease the number of teachers and other staff in the Head Start program. The teachers have a life-long impact on Head Start children’s lives,” commented David Lord and Laurie Holscher, grandparents of a former Head Start student. “We need more teachers like the ones we knew at our local Head Start program.”
