������Ƶ

On September 11, a federal district judge the Trump Administration’s attempt to prohibit undocumented children from enrolling in Head Start, the largest federally funded preschool program. The policy shift, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in early July, was an unprecedented change expected to impact an immigrant-origin children and families, or about 16 percent of total Head Start enrollment, if allowed to go into effect.

Head Start was created in 1965 by President Johnson as part of his War on Poverty campaign, and as such, it was to help prepare children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds to enter the K–12 system. Historically, Head Start eligibility has children from birth to age five whose families meet federal poverty guidelines, including children from families experiencing homelessness, those receiving public assistance such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), as well as foster children regardless of their foster family’s income. Head Start has served close to since its inception.

In 1998, an regarding the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) to exempt Head Start, as well as several other community-based grant programs, from requirements to verify the legal status of program enrollees. This exemption was based on the conclusion that non-postsecondary education programs, such as Head Start and K-12 education, are unique from federal public benefits like public housing or unemployment benefits.

As such, quality early childhood education programs offered by Head Start have been within reach of families living in poverty, regardless of documentation status, for the last . The Trump Administration is now threatening to upend this reality as part of its broader immigration agenda. And although undocumented children are being singled out in this new policy, this change will have short- and long-term adverse effects that ripple through its intended target and negatively impact all young children and families served by Head Start programs.

First, immigrant-origin children of varying documentation statuses will withdraw from Head Start programs. As notes, the short- and long-term harms that can be expected from this policy change “are not merely speculative” as there is already evidence of immediate enrollment and attendance drops in Head Start programs across the county. For example, a Pennsylvania grantee reported a 50 percent decline in enrollment of Spanish-speaking families. The judge’s order also points out that grantees in Washington have seen families unenroll from Head Start due to the policy change while “at least 20 families” in one program expressed fear about continuing to send their children to the program. The immigration status of these families–the parents and children– should not be assumed as immigrant-origin families may have statuses, such as a citizen child who has undocumented parents. Experience has shown that mixed-status and immigrant families with children have been out of fear, even if someone in their family (such as a U.S.-born child) is eligible for services. This retreat will have a negative long-term impact on all immigrant-origin children excluded from education opportunities during these critical years.

If upheld, this policy decision will disrupt immigrant children’s pre-K experiences—regardless of documentation status—and negatively influence their long-term academic development. According to a by the Children’s Equity Project at Arizona State University, exploring Head Start’s educational reach and impact, “Removing opportunity from children early in life, in general, makes it more likely that they have greater needs later in life,” particularly when they enter the K–12 education system. This may be particularly grave for dual language learners enrolled in Head Start–about of the population– if they are cut off from Head Start and go on to enter K–12 classrooms with unmet linguistic needs. Cutting off immigrant-origin children from that Head Start offers can also impact their mental health. According to the noted above, “school is a place where they [immigrant children] find stability and security in the routines, relationships, and connections they established,” and taking this safety net away is likely to increase stress and anxiety among students of immigrant-origin.

On a programmatic level, the judge’s order also makes clear the level of confusion the abrupt policy shift caused. Head Start grantees are unclear on how to comply with the new policy and how they should go about verifying immigration status. If the policy change is upheld, grantees will have to divert resources away from education and towards developing new policies for screening and verifying immigration status and training staff. This additional responsibility placed on grantees could lead to even greater financial hardship for individual programs. It should also be noted that U.S.-born children would be negatively affected by this new policy as well since Head Start programs would be required to verify all students’ citizenship status. The task of providing the required documentation can be considerably more difficult due to the limited availability of identification services in many communities. And, as the report noted above states, these administrative burdens will affect some families–regardless of immigration status–more than others, including families experiencing homelessness, families of children with disabilities, and children involved in the child welfare system.

Banning immigrant children from early education opportunities will have a detrimental impact on society as a whole. Experience from other countries that have banned immigrant children–of varying documentation statuses– “banning immigrant children from schools exacerbated the rate of poverty and reduced the country’s social and economic health,” according to the same CEP referenced above. Stripping away vital access to early childhood education is inconsistent with showing that participating in Head Start has multiple positive impacts, particularly for those from economically disadvantaged and immigrant backgrounds. For now, it is critical that state and local leaders understand that this change is on hold and eligible families must continue to be served. And, in the event that the rule is upheld, it will be critical for state leaders to step up to find alternative ways to ensure all immigrant-origin families continue to have access to high quality early childhood education.