Rep. Chu, Tri-Caucus Leaders Demand HHS Withdraw Harmful English-Only Head Start Proposal

Today, Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28), Chair Emerita of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), CAPAC Chair Grace Meng (NY-06), Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) Chair Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Chair Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Rep. Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), and Rep. Juan Vargas (CA-52) sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. opposing HHS's proposed Head Start rule which would mandate English-only instruction and eliminate longstanding language-access protections for children and families.

Head Start is a critical program that provides high-quality early childhood education and comprehensive support services for low-income children and their families. While the Members urge HHS to withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety, their letter focuses specifically on its harmful changes to language-access protections. Nearly 40 percent of children enrolled in Head Start are dual-language learners, representing almost 290,000 children nationwide, and 30 percent of enrollees come from families whose primary home language is not English.

In the letter, the Members explain that dual-language instruction helps children learn English and prepare for school:

"We share the goal of ensuring that every Head Start child develops strong English-language skills. But requiring English-only instruction is not supported by the evidence and risks undermining that very goal. For many children, Head Start is their first experience in a classroom. Providing an environment in which young children can understand, communicate, and participate supports their ability to learn and successfully transition into school.

The Members also warn that the proposed rule conflicts with Congress's explicit directives in the Head Start Act:

"Congress directed the Secretary to establish standards ensuring that children with limited English proficiency make progress toward acquiring English while simultaneously making meaningful progress in other developmental domains, including through "culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional services" (42 U.S. Code § 9836a(a)(1)(B)(x)). Congress further directed the Secretary, when revising Head Start standards, to ensure that revisions do not eliminate or reduce the quality, scope, or types of educational, parental-involvement, health, or other services required under longstanding Head Start standards (42 U.S.C. § 9836a(a)(2)(C)). And the Head Start Act explicitly requires agencies to ensure teachers receive literacy training "in methods to promote vocabulary development and phonological awareness (including phonemic awareness) in a developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate manner and support children's development in their native language" (42 U.S. Code § 9843(d)(2)(B)). Eliminating longstanding language-access protections appears directly at odds with these congressional directives, and the Department has not adequately explained how its proposal can be reconciled with them."

The Members detail how eliminating bilingual staffing requirements could undermine parents' ability to participate in their children's education and jeopardize accurate developmental screenings and assessments:

"Congress recognized that informed and engaged parents are essential to children's success and required Head Start programs to conduct family needs assessments and communicate with parents, to the extent practicable, in a language they understand (42 U.S. Code § 9836(d)(2)(J)(vii); 42 U.S. Code § 9836(d)(2)(K); 42 U.S. Code § 9836a(f)(2)). Eliminating language-access staffing requirements without providing an adequate alternative could make it more difficult for parents to understand their children's progress, participate in their education, communicate with teachers and staff, and access the comprehensive services Head Start provides.

We are particularly concerned about the consequences for developmental screenings and assessments. The Head Start Act requires measures used by Head Start programs to be developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate; valid and reliable in the language in which they are administered; administered by appropriately trained staff; and accompanied by appropriate accommodations for children with limited English proficiency (42 U.S. Code § 9836a(b)(2)). These protections are critical. A screening or assessment administered in a language a young child does not sufficiently understand risks mistaking normal second-language development for a developmental delay or, conversely, failing to identify a genuine disability or developmental concern. Either outcome could delay appropriate early intervention at precisely the age when it can make the greatest difference."

Finally, the Members warn that the proposal would impose significant disruption and costs on Head Start providers while weakening services for hundreds of thousands of children:

"The scale of the disruption caused by the proposed rule's language-access changes would be substantial. Almost 290,000 dual-language learners nationwide could be affected […] Although the proposal is titled Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs, affected programs could be forced to change curricula, replace classroom materials, and retrain or replace teachers, resulting in an estimated $99 million in costs."

"HHS should not reverse decades of evidence-based practice, impose new costs on providers, and weaken language-access protections for hundreds of thousands of children without a compelling evidentiary or legal basis for doing so. Accordingly, we strongly urge HHS to withdraw the proposed English-only instruction requirement and retain the longstanding language-access protections that allow Head Start programs to effectively serve dual-language learners and their families. Congress expressly directed Head Start to support English-language acquisition through culturally and linguistically appropriate services, and HHS should uphold, not undermine, that mandate."

Read the full letter HERE .