One of the programs for children established during the Johnson Administration was Head Start,
a preschool program for children aged four and five. Although Head
Start, which serves low-income families, has continued to receive
funding, there have never been enough slots available to meet the needs
of all eligible children.
In 2013, for example, less than 50%
of eligible low-income preschoolers were enrolled in Head Start. Though
not all of those children would attend even if a slot was available,
many families who want services are being turned away.
Questions:
Why do you suppose that this is the case?
If Head Start is effective enough
to receive continued funding, why wouldn’t we choose to fund it at
levels that would guarantee a space to every eligible child?
In the 1990s, Congress passed
Healthy Start, a program offering prenatal care, childcare, home
visiting, and other services to low-income families for children from
birth to age three. But in 2013, its funding was so low it served less
than 5% of eligible children.
Why do you think Congress never followed up the authorization with the appropriation of sufficient funding?
There’s an argument about whether
government subsidies for childcare should be needs-based (like Head
Start) or universal (like Social Security).
What do you think–should government subsidies for childcare be needs-based or universal? Why?
Which is more likely to attract public support and why?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|