BOULDER, CO (September 15, 2026) — Head Start is a federal-to-local program intended to enhance the school readiness and success of children in poverty. The program, housed in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently being targeted by the Trump administration for a major overhaul. In August, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a proposed rule that would remove federal standards around background checks, class size, and staff-to-child ratios, among other things—characterized as providing states with “flexibility.”

This proposed rule was a major step along the way to a key goal of the Heritage Foundation, the organization behind Project 2025. As explained in a recent Heritage report, this sort of deregulation is advisable, while the administration also works to end the program. However, a review of the new Heritage report finds the sheer volume of relevant research overlooked by the proposal to be “stunning.”

W. Steven Barnett and Morgan Healy of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University reviewed From Washington, DC, to the States: Rethinking Head Start. They found the report’s conclusions and recommendations to be unsupported by evidence. 

The Heritage report concludes that Head Start does not improve school readiness or produce lasting benefits, spends more per child than alternatives, fails to protect children adequately, and is burdened by regulations that serve no purpose. It therefore recommends eliminating Head Start, block granting its funds to states, and replacing federal program standards with less stringent state childcare regulations. The last of these three recommendations overlaps with the new proposed HHS rule.

Barnett and Healy concur that Head Start is long overdue for Congressional reauthorization and that there is room to reduce paperwork and overly detailed regulations. Moreover, major demographic, economic, and policy changes over the past quarter century have altered the population Head Start serves and the context in which it operates. These changes provide a strong rationale for rethinking Head Start, and the report should be credited for raising questions about how Head Start should adapt to changing conditions. 

However, Barnett and Healy conclude that the report’s use of evidence is so limited and misleading that neither its conclusions about Head Start’s performance and benefits nor its policy recommendations should be used to inform policy decisions. In fact, the full body of research indicates Head Start has immediate benefits for children and likely improves adult outcomes, while the report’s recommended relaxed class size and ratio requirements would likely reduce benefits. Adopting the report’s recommendations could do more harm than good for children and taxpayers, since stronger not weaker standards are warranted to improve outcomes.

Find the review, written by W. Steven Barnett and Morgan Healy, at: https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/head-start

Find From Washington, DC, to the States: Rethinking Head Start, written by Madison Marino Doan and Jonathan Butcher, and published by the Heritage Foundation, at: https://www.heritage.org/education/report/washington-dc-the-states-rethinking-head-start