特朗普政府周四公布了一份争议巨大的改革提案，目标直指开端计划（Head Start）—— 该项目为数十万低收入家庭儿童提供早期教育与健康服务。
政府官员表示，这份拟议规则将取消该项目大量联邦层面监管，转而采用各州制定的标准。官员称，改革可以赋予服务机构更大自主权，以此强化项目质量，有望新增多达 23．6 万个儿童名额，每年可节省 22 亿美元，节省下来的资金会重新投入开端计划。
但批评人士猛烈抨击这一改革方案。他们认为，废除开端计划严苛的儿童发展、健康与安全标准，是变相瓦解该项目的迂回手段。批评者指出，改革之后，儿童得到的照护会减少，健康筛查、残障儿童配套服务会缩水，家庭获得的帮扶也会被削弱。
“这些并不是官僚主义的繁文缛节。正是这些标准，才让开端计划改变了数百万普通人的命运。” 华盛顿州开端计划协会执行主任乔尔・瑞安表示，“这份提案，会削弱数十万儿童本应享有的保护。”
进入特朗普第二任期后，开端计划一直处境动荡。
白宫一份预算草案曾提议彻底取消该项目的联邦拨款。自 1965 年落地以来，开端计划已经惠及超过 4000 万儿童及其家庭。这份草案引发大量支持者担忧，保守派传统基金会编制的大型政策手册《2025 计划》，就曾主张废除开端计划。
最终，特朗普申请维持该项目原有拨款规模，该项目每年联邦投入超过 120 亿美元。
另外，2025 年 1 月特朗普就任总统后，曾下令冻结全部联邦资金，再加上去年秋季联邦政府关门，部分服务机构一度拿不到项目经费。
赋予地方更大自主权
美国卫生与公众服务部表示，新规将让服务机构参照各州标准开展工作，涉及班级规模、师生配比、从业人员学历背景、背景审查等多个维度，以此给机构更多自主处置权。
卫生与公众服务部儿童与家庭管理局负责人亚历克斯・亚当斯向记者表示：“制定这套规则的出发点，就是信任地方管理者，让他们做出最适合本地社区的决策。联邦层面的硬性规定，确实会束缚地方决策、抬高运营成本，还会限制项目覆盖范围。”
新规新增营养与体育活动相关要求，契合卫生与公众服务部长小罗伯特・F・肯尼迪的施政重点。
值得注意的是，新规将行政开支上限从原来的 15% 压缩至 5%；同时要求教学必须使用英语，不再延续现行法规对双语教学的支持。
亚当斯称，提案依旧完整保留《开端计划法案》全部法定要求，包含综合服务框架、准入资格、家长参与机制以及民权保护条款；项目依旧优先帮扶最困难的家庭，重视儿童入学准备与身心健康发展。
公众有 60 天时间，针对这份提案提交意见反馈。 标准遭到弱化，引发担忧
批评人士警告，很多州的学前教育标准本身要求偏低，改革之后会直接损害项目实施效果。
公益机构 “早期启航” 政府关系高级副总裁伊薇特・桑切斯・富恩特斯告诉记者：“开端计划的执行标准，是全美各地保障儿童、家庭、社区权益的根基，这套体系本身就已经预留了灵活操作空间。”
左翼智库新美国基金会高级政策分析师艾伦・洛温伯格在上月发布的报告中写道：部分州允许的师生配比远高于开端计划的联邦硬性要求，意味着每个孩子得到的个性化照护会变少。绝大多数州也没有同等严格的健康筛查、视力听力检测以及家庭帮扶要求。
“这份拟议新规，本质上是要从内部掏空项目外壳。保留‘开端计划’这个名字，但把长期决定项目质量与服务范围的联邦标准全部废除。” 他在报告中写道。
华盛顿开端计划协会首席策略师洛里・皮特曼本人也曾是开端计划项目的儿童家长，她向记者介绍，改革之后家长的参与权限将被压缩，仅保留咨询建议的角色。现行制度下，家长可以进入政策委员会，和机构管理层、理事会共同参与决策。
公益人士还指出，新规所谓的经费节约，是依靠扩大班级规模、减少教师数量实现。除此之外，机构还可以缩短项目运营时长。提案文件也承认，这会给部分家庭带来经济压力。
提案文件写明：“如果机构缩短每年服务时长、减少服务天数，家长就需要另行寻找托育渠道，这会让家庭产生额外开支，或是造成家长误工。”
Trump officials say they’re strengthening Head Start with proposed rule． Critics say they’ll gut it
The Trump administration unveiled Thursday sweeping and controversial proposed changes to the Head Start program， which provides early education and health services to hundreds of thousands of low-income children．
Administration officials contend that the proposed rule would eliminate many of the program’s federal regulations in favor of state standards， which officials say would strengthen the program by giving providers more flexibility， could create up to 236，000 more slots and could save $2．2 billion annually that would be reinvested into Head Start．
But critics blasted the effort， saying that getting rid of Head Start’s rigorous child development， health and safety standards is a backdoor way of dismantling the program． They argue that children will get less attention and fewer health screenings and disability services， while families will get less support．
“These are not bureaucratic requirements of red tape． They are the reason Head Start has changed millions of lives，” said Joel Ryan， executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start．“This proposal would weaken those protections for hundreds of thousands of children．”
Head Start has faced tumultuous times during President Donald Trump’s second term．
A draft White House budget proposedending federal fundingfor the program， which has served more than 40 million children and their families since 1965． The move raised many red flags among supporters， who noted that Project 2025， a massive policy playbook compiled by the conservative Heritage Foundation， called for Head Start’s elimination．
Ultimately， Trump requested essentially level funding for the program， which receives more than $12 billion annually．
Also， some providers temporarily lost access to their funding during the federal government shutdown last fall and after the Trump administration ordered a freeze on all federal funding shortly after the president took office in January 2025．
More flexibility
The rule aims to give providers more flexibility and control by having them align with state standards governing class sizes， staffing ratios， education requirements and background checks， among other practices， according to the Department of Health and Human Services．
“We built this rule around trusting local leaders to make the decisions that are best for their local communities，” Alex Adams， who leads HHS’ Administration for Children and Families， told reporters． “Federal mandates can certainly hinder local decision-making， drive up costs and limit the program’s reach．”
It would add new nutrition and physical activity requirements， in keeping with HHS Secretary Robert F． Kennedy Jr．’s priorities．
Notably， it would also tighten the cap on administrative expenses to 5%， down from 15%． It would also require that education be taught in English， rather than the current regulations， which support bilingualism．
However， the proposed rule would maintain all the requirements in the Head Start Act， including the law’s framework for comprehensive services， eligibility， parental participation and civil rights protections， Adams said． It would also continue to require the program to focus on families with the greatest need and to emphasize school readiness and healthy development．
The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposed rule．
Weakening standards
Critics warn that many states have less rigorous early childhood standards， which would harm the program’s effectiveness．
Head Start’s performance standards serve as the foundation to ensure that programs nationwide are supporting children， families and communities， Yvette Sanchez Fuentes， senior vice president for government relations at the advocacy group Start Early， told reporters． Flexibility was already built in．
Several states have staffing ratios that are much higher than Head Start’s mandate， which could mean that children get less individualized attention， Aaron Loewenberg， a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning New America，wrote in a reportlast month． Also， most states don’t have the same requirements for health screenings， vision and hearing assessments and family support．
“This forthcoming proposed rule seems designed to hollow out the program from within， leaving the Head Start name intact while gutting the federal standards that have long defined its quality and scope，” he wrote．
Also， parents’ involvement would be reduced to an advisory role， Lori Pittman， chief strategist at the Washington Head Start Association and a former Head Start parent， told reporters． Currently， parents serve on Policy Councils， which participate in decision making with Head Start providers’ management and boards．
Advocates also pointed out that the savings in the proposed rule stem from allowing providers to increase classes sizes so fewer teachers would be needed． Plus， providers could shorten the hours that the programs operate， which the rule notes could create a financial burden for families．
“To the extent that programs choose to reduce duration — annual hours or days of service — families may need to secure alternative child care arrangements， which could impose additional financial costs or lost work time for families，” the rule states．
