EDUCATION : Debate on Head Start Money Pits Expansion Vs. Excellence

Head Start, the nation’s most popular anti-poverty program, has become embroiled in a new controversy over how much money should be allocated to the quarter-century-old program: Supporters are fearful that in this case, more may actually turn out to be less.

At the center of the debate are questions about how to spend the $1.95-billion budget, an increase of $399 million, that Congress voted for the Head Start program, which is intended to help prepare disadvantaged youngsters for elementary school.

President Bush, who endorsed the move, says he wants to boost the overall enrollment, yet maintain the quality of the programs that currently are offered in community centers, churches, and other preschools across the nation.

But critics say the additional money isn’t sufficient to accomplish both goals, and that if administrators give priority to bringing more impoverished children into the program, Head Start will be unable to provide quality help for the youngsters who are already enrolled.

“We either love Head Start too much or we dislike it too much,” says Edward Ziegler, a Yale University professor who directed the program from 1970 to 1972, during the Richard M. Nixon Administration. “Right now, everyone loves Head Start.”

BACKGROUND: The seeds for the current debate were planted more than a year ago, when Bush unveiled a fiscal 1991 budget plan that included a 36% increase in spending for the Head Start program. His goal was to enable Head Start to reach 70% of all disadvantaged 4-year-olds.

The program now reaches only 20% of the eligible children--those living below the poverty line. Ziegler describes the Bush Administration’s attitude as, “let’s get more kids in this year, and we’ll fix it up next year.”

But critics argue that is the wrong approach.

“We have been the biggest advocates of serving as many children as possible,” says Don Bolce, lobbyist for the National Head Start Assn., which represents about 2,000 Head Start agencies. “But we’re stretched far too thin.”

While the debate rages over how best to spend the 1991 allocation, the controversy is intensifying over the Administration’s request for an additional $100 million for fiscal 1992, which begins Oct. 1.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the program, wants to add 29,000 children to the expected 590,000 in the current year.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that approximately $84 million of the $100 million is likely to be needed just to keep pace with inflation. The remaining $16 million would be far too little to finance an increase of 29,000 students. So Head Start centers would have to make cuts.

“I’d rather serve fewer children and serve each child very well than serve a lot of children badly,” Ziegler says.

OUTLOOK: Wade Horn, who supervises the Head Start program for HHS, denies that the program’s quality would suffer if Head Start were expanded. “There’s no one in the department interested in expanding the program at the expense of quality,” he says.

But Horn concedes that the extra money is bound to mean larger enrollments. “It would be a mistake to say to the American taxpayer, ‘We want 400 million more of your dollars, and we’re not going to get one more child into the program,’ ” he says.

Horn insists that the government can use the extra money to accommodate both goals. “Our intention is to expand while paying attention to quality,” he insists.

Of the almost $400 million increase for fiscal 1991, some $195 million will be used for improving the program--by increasing salaries and fringe benefits to attract better teachers, and by refurbishing classrooms and providing additional training for the staff.

Roughly half of the full-time staff is paid no more than $10,000 a year.

An additional $57 million is earmarked for non-expansion purposes, leaving the remainder to help boost enrollment, Horn says. “I don’t know where the controversy is coming from--unless there is distrust we’re going to provide funds to cover cost increases,” he adds.

Still, there’s no question that both Congress and the Administration intend to go ahead with the expansion. “We’re going to,” Horn says. “That’s not a problem.”