2026年8月6日 美国东部时间上午9:30 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：塔米·勒布比（Tami Luhby）
2025年1月在迈阿密，一名学生在伊斯特尔塞尔斯（Easterseals）运营的“开端计划”项目读写课上寻找指定字母。该组织约三分之一的资金来自联邦政府。
丽贝卡·布莱克韦尔/美联社
特朗普政府周四公布了对“开端计划”（Head Start）全面且颇具争议的拟议改革方案。该项目为数十万低收入儿童提供早期教育和健康服务。
政府官员认为，这项拟议规则将取消该项目的许多联邦监管要求，转而采用州级标准。官员们表示，这将通过给予服务提供商更多灵活性来强化项目，可新增多达23.6万个学位，每年节省22亿美元并重新投入“开端计划”。
但批评者警告称，此举可能在多方面损害该项目，尤其是因为州级早期教育以及健康和安全标准往往不够严格。
在唐纳德·特朗普总统的第二任期内，“开端计划”一直处境艰难。
白宫一份预算草案提议终止该项目的联邦资助。该项目自1965年以来已为超过4000万儿童及其家庭提供服务。这一提议在支持者中引发了强烈反对，他们指出，由保守派智库传统基金会编撰的大型政策手册《2025计划》呼吁取消“开端计划”。
最终，特朗普要求为该项目提供基本持平的 funding，该项目每年获得的资金超过120亿美元。
此外，在去年秋季联邦政府停摆期间，以及特朗普政府在2025年1月总统就职后不久下令冻结所有联邦资金后，部分服务提供商暂时无法获得资助。
更多灵活性
根据美国卫生与公众服务部（HHS）的说法，该规则旨在让服务提供商更加灵活自主，要求其符合州级标准，包括班级规模、人员配比、教育要求和背景调查等方面的规定。
“我们制定这项规则的核心是信任地方领导人做出最适合当地社区的决策，”负责HHS儿童与家庭管理局的亚历克斯·亚当斯（Alex Adams）对记者表示，“联邦指令无疑会阻碍地方决策、推高成本并限制项目覆盖范围。”
该规则将新增营养和体育活动要求，这符合HHS部长小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪（Robert F. Kennedy Jr.）的工作重点。
值得注意的是，该规则还将行政费用上限从15%收紧至5%。
不过亚当斯表示，拟议规则将保留《开端计划法案》中的所有要求，包括该法案中关于综合服务、资格认定、家长参与和民权保护的框架。它还将继续要求项目优先服务于最有需求的家庭，并强调入学准备和健康发展。
但批评者警告称，许多州的早期儿童教育标准不够严格，这将损害项目的有效性。
左翼智库新美国基金会的高级政策分析师亚伦·勒温贝格（Aaron Loewenberg）在上月的一份报告中指出，例如，多个州的人员配比远高于“开端计划”的规定，这可能意味着儿童获得的个性化关注更少。此外，大多数州没有相同的健康筛查、视力和听力评估以及家庭支持要求。
“这项即将出台的拟议规则似乎旨在从内部掏空该项目，保留‘开端计划’的名称，却削弱了长期以来定义其质量和范围的联邦标准，”他写道。
Trump officials say they’re strengthening Head Start with proposed rule. Critics say they’ll gut it
2026-08-06 09:30 AM ET / CNN
By Tami Luhby
A student looks for a certain letter during a reading and writing lesson at a Head Start program run by Easterseals, an organization that gets about a third of its funding from the federal government in January 2025 in Miami.
Rebecca Blackwell/AP
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 caution that the effort could hurt the program in multiple ways, particularly because state standards for early childhood education and health and safety requirements are often less stringent.
Head Start has faced tumultuous times during President Donald Trump’s second term.
A draft White House budget proposed ending federal funding for 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%.
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.
But critics warn that many states have less rigorous early childhood standards, which would harm the program’s effectiveness.
For instance, 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 report last 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.
发表回复