Head Start Performance Standards

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Chapter XIII

RIN 0970-AC63

Head Start Performance Standards

AGENCY:

Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule modernizes the Head Start Program Performance Standards, last revised in 1998. In the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Congress instructed the Office of Head Start to update its performance standards and to ensure any such revisions to the standards do not eliminate or reduce quality, scope, or types of health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or other services programs provide. This rule responds to public comment, incorporates extensive findings from research and from consultation with experts, reflects best practices, lessons from program input and innovation, integrates recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory Committee Final Report on Head Start Research and Evaluation, and reflects the Obama Administration's deep commitment to improve the school readiness of young children. These performance standards will improve program quality, reduce burden on programs, and improve regulatory clarity and transparency. They provide a clear road map for current and prospective grantees to support high-quality Head Start services and to strengthen the outcomes of the children and families Head Start serves.

DATES:

Effective Date:

Provisions of this final rule become effective November 7, 2016.

Compliance Date(s):

To allow programs reasonable time to implement certain performance standards, we phase in compliance dates over several years after this final rule becomes effective. In the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section below, we provide a table, Table 1: Compliance Table, which lists dates by which programs must implement specific standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colleen Rathgeb, Division Director of Early Childhood Policy and Budget, Office of Early Childhood Development, at

OHS_Final_Rule@acf.hhs.gov

or (202) 401-1195 (not a toll free call). Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Tables

Table 1: Compliance Table

Table 2: Redesignation Table

III. Background

a. Statutory Authority

b. Purpose of This Rule

c. Rulemaking and Comment Processes

d. Overview of Major Changes From the NPRM

IV. Discussion of General Comments on the Final Rule

V. Discussion of Section by Section Comments on the Final Rule

a. Program Governance

b. Program Operations

1. Subpart A Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment and Attendance

2. Subpart B Program Structure

3. Subpart C Education and Child Development Program Services

4. Subpart D Health Program Services

5. Subpart E Family and Community Engagement Program Services

6. Subpart F Additional Services for Children With Disabilities

7. Subpart G Transition Services

8. Subpart H Services to Enrolled Pregnant Women

9. Subpart I Human Resources Management

10. Subpart J Program Management and Quality Improvement

c. Financial and Administrative Requirements

1. Subpart A Financial Requirements

2. Subpart B Administrative Requirements

3. Subpart C Protections for the Privacy of Child Records

4. Subpart D Delegation of Program Operations

5. Subpart E Facilities

6. Subpart F Transportation

d. Federal Administrative Procedures

1. Subpart A Monitoring, Suspension, Termination, Denial of Refunding, Reduction in Funding and Their Appeals

2. Subpart B Designation Renewal

3. Subpart C Selection of Grantees Through Competition

4. Subpart D Replacement of American Indian and Alaska Native Grantee

5. Subpart E Head Start Fellows Program

e. Definitions

VIII. Regulatory Process Matters

a. Regulatory Flexibility Act

b. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Order 12866

1. Need for Regulatory Action: Increasing the Benefits to Society of Head Start

2. Cost and Savings Analysis

i. Structural Program Option Provisions

ii. Educator Quality Provisions

iii. Curriculum and Assessment Provisions

iv. Administrative/Managerial Provisions

3. Benefit Analysis

4. Accounting Statement

5. Distributional Effects

6. Regulatory Alternatives

c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

d. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

e. Federalism Assessment Executive Order 13132

f. Congressional Review

g. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Tribal Consultation Statement

I. Executive Summary

Head Start currently provides comprehensive early learning services to more than 1 million children from birth to age five each year through more than 60,000 classes, home visitors, and family child care partners nationwide.

1

Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has been a leader in helping children from low-income families enter kindergarten more prepared to succeed in school and in life. Head Start is a central part of this Administration's effort to ensure all children have access to high-quality early learning opportunities and to eliminate the education achievement gap. This regulation is intended to improve the quality of Head Start services so that programs have a stronger impact on children's learning and development. It also is necessary to streamline and reorganize the regulatory structure to improve regulatory clarity and transparency so that existing grantees can more easily run a high-quality Head Start program and so that Head Start's operational requirements will be more transparent and seem less onerous to prospective grantees. In addition, this regulation is necessary to reduce the burden on local programs that can interfere with high-quality service delivery. We believe these regulatory changes will help ensure every child and family in Head Start receives high-quality services that will lead to greater success in school and in life.

1

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2015).

Office of Head Start Program Information Report, 2014-2015.

Washington, DC: Author.

In 2007, Congress mandated the Secretary to revise the program performance standards and update and raise the education standards.

2

Congress also prohibited elimination of, or any reduction in, the quality, scope, or types of services in the revisions.

3

Thus, these regulatory revisions are additionally intended to meet the statutory requirements Congress put forth in the bipartisan reauthorization of Head Start in 2007.

2

See

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/110th-congress/house-report/439/1

and 42 U.S.C. 9836A(a)(1)(B).

3

42 U.S.C. 9836A(a)(2)(C)(ii).

The Head Start Program Performance Standards are the foundation on which programs design and deliver comprehensive, high-quality individualized services to support the school readiness of children from low-income families. The first set of Head Start Program Performance Standards was published in the 1970s. Since then, they have been revised following subsequent Congressional reauthorizations and were last revised in 1998. The program performance standards set forth the requirements local grantees must meet to support the cognitive, social, emotional, and healthy development of children from birth to age five. They encompass requirements to provide education, health, mental health, nutrition, and family and community engagement services, as well as rules for local program governance and aspects of federal administration of the program.

This final rule builds upon extensive consultation with researchers, practitioners, recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory Committee Final Report on Head Start Research and Evaluation,

4

and other experts, public comment, as well as internal analysis of program data and years of program input. In addition, program monitoring has also provided invaluable experience regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the previous program performance standards. Moreover, research and practice in the field of early childhood education has expanded exponentially in the 15 years since the program performance standards governing service delivery were last revised, providing a multitude of new insights on how to support improved child outcomes.

4

Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation: Final Report.

(2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

See

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf.

The Secretary's Advisory Committee, which consisted of expert researchers and practitioners chartered to provide “recommendations for improving Head Start program effectiveness” concluded early education programs, including Head Start, are capable of reducing the achievement gap, but that Head Start is not reaching its potential.

5

As part of their work, the Committee provided recommendations for interpreting the results of both the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS),

6

a randomized control trial study of children in Head Start in 2002 and 2003 through third grade, and the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHSREP),

7

which was initiated in 1996 and followed children who were eligible to participate in Early Head Start. The Committee concluded that these findings should be interpreted in the context of the larger body of research that demonstrates Head Start and Early Head Start “are improving family well-being and improving school readiness of children at or below the poverty line in the U.S. today.”

8

The Committee agreed the initial impact both Head Start and Early Head Start have demonstrated “are in line with the magnitude of findings from other scaled-up programs for infants and toddlers . . . and center-based programs for preschoolers . . .” but also acknowledged “larger impacts may be possible,

e.g.,

by increasing dosage in [Early Head Start] and Head Start or improving instructional factors in Head Start.”

9

The Committee also addressed the finding that these impacts do not seem to persist into elementary school, stating the larger body of research on Head Start provides “evidence of long-term positive outcomes for those who participated in Head Start in terms of high school completion, avoidance of problem behaviors, avoidance of entry into the criminal justice system, too-early family formation, avoidance of special education, and workforce attachment.” Overall, the report determined a key factor for Head Start to realize its potential is “making quality and other improvements and optimizing dosage within Head Start [and Early Head Start].” The final rule aims to capitalize on the advancements in research, available data, program input, public comment, and these recommendations in order to accomplish the critical goal of helping Head Start reach its full potential so more children reach kindergarten ready to succeed.

5

Ibid,

(p.1).

6

Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Broene, P., Jenkins, F., & Downer, J. (2012).

Third grade follow-up to the Head Start impact study final report.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.

7

Cohen, R.C., Vogel, C.A., Xue, Y., Moiduddin, E.M., Carlson, B.L., Twin Peaks Partners, L.L.C., & Kisker, E.E. (2010).

Early Head Start Children in Grade 5: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project Study Sample.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, (6933).

8

Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation: Final Report.

(2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

See

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/eval_final.pdf

.

9

Ibid.

(p. 30).

This final rule reorganizes previous program performance standards to make it easier for grantees to implement them and for the public to understand the broad range of Head Start program services. Our previous program performance standards consisted of 1,400 provisions organized in 11 different sections that were amended in a partial or topical fashion over the past 40 years. This approach resulted in a somewhat opaque set of requirements that were unnecessarily challenging to interpret and overburdened grantees with process-laden rules.

This rule has four distinct sections: (1)

Program Governance,

which outlines the requirements imposed by the Head Start Act (the “Act”) on Governing Bodies and Policy Councils to ensure well-governed Head Start programs; (2)

Program Operations,

which outlines all of the operational requirements for serving children and families, from the universe of eligible children and the services they must be provided in education, health, and family and community engagement, to the way programs must use data to improve the services they provide; (3)

Financial and Administrative Requirements,

which lays out the federal requirements Head Start programs must adhere to because of overarching federal requirements or specific provisions imposed in the Act; and (4)

Federal Administrative Procedures,

which governs the procedures the responsible HHS official takes to determine the results of competition for all grantees, any actions against a grantee, whether a grantee needs to compete for renewed funding, and other transparency-related procedures required in the Act.

We also reorganized specific sections and streamlined provisions to make Head Start requirements easier to understand for all interested parties—grantees, potential grantees, other early education programs, and members of the general public. We reorganized subparts and their sections to eliminate redundancy, and we grouped together related requirements. Additionally, we systematically addressed the fact that many of our most critical provisions were buried in subparts that made them difficult to find and interpret, and did not reflect their centrality to the provision of high-quality services. For example, we created new subparts or sections to highlight and expand, where necessary, upon these important requirements.

We also streamlined requirements and minimized administrative burden on local programs. In total, we significantly reduced the number of regulatory requirements without compromising quality. We give programs greater flexibility to determine how best to

achieve their goals and administer a high-quality Head Start program without reducing expectations for children and families. We anticipate these changes will help move Head Start away from a compliance-oriented culture to an outcomes-focused one. Furthermore, we believe this approach will support better collaboration with other programs and funding streams. We recognize that grantees deliver services through a variety of modalities including child care and state pre-kindergarten programs. Additionally, we removed other overly prescriptive requirements related to governing bodies, appeals, and audits.

We include several provisions to support local flexibility to meet community needs and to promote innovation and research. We give Head Start programs additional flexibility in the structural requirements of program models, such as group size and ratios. Further, we permit local variations for effective and innovative curriculum and professional development models, giving flexibility from some of these requirements if the Head Start program works with research experts and evaluates the effectiveness of their model. We also support local innovation through a process to waive individual eligibility verification requirements, which will allow better coordination with local early education programs without reducing quality. Collectively, these changes will allow for the development of innovative program models, alleviate paperwork burdens, and support mixed income settings.

We believe the benefits of these changes will be significant for the children and families Head Start serves. Strengthening Head Start standards will improve child outcomes and promote greater success in school as well as produce higher returns on taxpayer investment. Reorganizing, streamlining, and reducing the requirements in the regulation will make Head Start less burdensome for existing grantees and more approachable for potential grantees, which may result in more organizations competing for Head Start grants. These changes are central to the Administration's belief that every child deserves an opportunity to succeed.

II. Tables

ER06SE16.001

ER06SE16.002

ER06SE16.003

ER06SE16.004

ER06SE16.005

Table 2—Redesignation Table

This final rule reorganizes and redesignates the Head Start Program Performance Standards under subchapter B at 45 CFR chapter XIII. We believe our efforts provide current and prospective grantees an organized road map on how to provide high-quality Head Start services.

To help the public readily locate sections and provisions from the previous performance standards that are reorganized and redesignated, we included redesignation and distribution tables in the NPRM. The redesignation table listed the previous section and identified the section we proposed would replace it. The distribution table in the NPRM listed previous provisions and showed whether we removed, revised, or redesignated them. We believe the public may continue to find the redesignation table useful here, so we included an updated version of it below.

Table 2—Redesignation Table

Previous section

New section

1301.1

1303.2

1301.20

1305

1301.10

1303.3

1301.11

1303.12

1301.20

1303.4

1301.21

1303.4

1301.30

1303.10

1301.31

1302.90, 1302.102

1301.32

1303.5

1301.33

1303.31

1301.34

1304.5, 1304.7

1302.1

1304.1

1302.2

1305

1302.5

1304.2, 1304.3, 1304.4

1302.10

1304.20

1302.11

1304.20

1302.30

1304.30

1302.31

1304.31

1302.32

1304.32

1303.1

1304.1, 1303.30

1303.2

1305

1303.10

1304.1

1303.11

1304.3

1303.12

1304.4

1303.14

1304.5

1303.21

1304.6

1303.22

1304.6

1304.1

1302.1

1304.3

1305

1304.20

1302.42, 1302.33, 1302.41, 1302.61, 1302.46, 1302.63

1304.21

1302.30, 1302.31, 1302, 1302.35, 1302.60, 1302.90, 1302.34, 1302.33, 1302.46, 1302.21

1304.22

1302.47, 1302.92, 1302.15, 1302.90, 1302.41, 1302.42, 1302.46

1304.23

1302.42, 1302.44, 1302.31, , 1302.90, , 1302.46

1304.24

1302.46, 1302.45

1304.40

1302.50, 1302.52, 1302.80, 1302.18, 1302.34, 1302.51, 1302.30, 1302.18, 1302.81, 1302.46, 1302.52, 1302.70, 1302.71, 1302.72, 1302.22, 1302.82

1304.41

1302.53, 1302.63, 1302.70, 1302.71

1304.50

1301.1, 1301.3 1302.102, , 1301.4

1304.51

1302.101, 1302.90, 1303.23, 1302.102, 1301.3, 1303.32

1304.52

1302.101, 1302.91, 1302.90, 1302.91, 1302.21, 1303.3, 1302.93, 1302.94, 1302.92, 1301.5

1304.53

1302.31, 1302.21, 1302.47, 1302.22, 1302.23

1304.60

1302.102, 1304.2

1305.1

1302.10

1305.2

1305

1305.3

1302.11, 1302.102, 1302.20

1305.4

1302.12

1305.5

1302.13, 1302.14,

1305.6

1302.14

1305.7

1302.12, 1302.15, 1302.70

1305.8

1302.16

1305.9

1302.18

1305.10

1304.4

1306.3

1305

1306.20

1302.101, 1302.21, 1302.90, 1302.23, 1302.20

1306.21

1302.91

1306.23

1302.92

1306.30

1302.20, 1302.21, 1302.22, 1302.23

1306.31

1302.20

1306.32

1302.21, 1302.24, 1302.17, 1302.102, 1302.34, 1302.18

1306.33

1302.22, 1302.101 , 1302.91, 1302.35, 1302.44, 1302.23, 1302.31, 1301.4, 1302.47, 1302.45, 1302.24

1307.1

1304.10

1307.2

1305

1307.3

1304.11

1307.4

1304.12

1307.5

1304.13

1307.6

1304.14

1307.7

1304.15

1307.8

1304.16

1308.1

1302.60

1308.3

1305

1308.4

1302.101, 1302.61, 1302.63, 1303.75

1308.5

1302.12, 1302.13

1308.6

1302.33, 1302.42, 1302.34, 1302.33

1308.18

1302.47

1308.21

1302.61, 1302.62, 1302.34

1309.1

1303.40

1309.2

1303.41

1309.3

1305

1309.4

1303.42, 1303.44, 1303.45, 1303.48, 1303.50

1309.21

1305, 1303.51, 1303.48, 1303.50, 1303.46, 1303.47, 1303.48, 1303.55, 1303.3

1309.22

1303.49, 1303.51

1309.31

1303.44, 1303.47

1309.33

1303.56

1309.40

1303.53

1309.41

1303.54

1309.43

1303.43

1309.52

1303.55

1309.53

1303.56

1310.2

1303.70

1310.3

1305

1310.10

1303.70, 1303.71, 1303.72

1310.14

1303.71

1310.15

1303.72

1310.16

1303.72

1310.17

1303.72

1310.20

1303.73

1310.21

1303.74

1310.22

1303.75

1310.23

1303.70

III. Background

a.

Statutory Authority

This final rule is published under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 640, 641A, 642, 644, 645, 645A, 646, 648A, and 649 of the Head Start Act, Public Law 97-35, 95 Stat. 499 (42 U.S.C. 9835, 9836a, 9837, 9839, 9840, 9840a, 9841, 9843a, and 9844), as amended by the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, 121 Stat. 1363. In these sections, the Secretary is required to establish performance standards for Head Start and Early Head Start programs, as well as federal administrative procedures. Specifically, the Act requires the Secretary to “. . . modify, as necessary, program performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start agencies and programs. . .” and explicitly directs a number of modifications, including “scientifically based and developmentally appropriate education performance standards related to school readiness that are based on the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework” and to “consult with experts in the fields of child development, early childhood education, child health care, family services . . ., administration, and financial management, and with persons with experience in the operation of Head Start programs.”

10

Not only did the Act mandate such significant revisions, there was also bipartisan and bicameral agreement in Congress that its central purpose was to update and raise the education standards and practices in Head Start programs.

11 12

As such, these program performance standards substantially build upon and improve the standards related to the education of children in Head Start programs.

10

See

section 42 U.S.C. 9836A (a)(1) and (2).

11

See

http://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgH13876-4.pdf.

12

See

http://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.

b.

Purpose of This Rule

This rule meets the statutory requirements Congress put forth in its 2007 bipartisan reauthorization of Head Start and addresses Congress's mandate that called for the Secretary to review and revise the Head Start Program Performance Standards.

13

Program performance standards are the foundation upon which Head Start programs design and deliver comprehensive, high-quality individualized services to support the school readiness of children from low-income families. They set forth requirements local grantees must meet to support the cognitive, social, emotional, and healthy development of children from birth to age five. They encompass requirements to provide education, health, mental health, nutrition, and family and community engagement services, as well as rules for local program governance and aspects of federal administration of the program.

Program performance standards in this final rule build upon field knowledge and experience to codify best practices and ensure Head Start programs deliver high-quality services to the children and families they serve.

13

See

http://beta.congress.gov/crec/2007/11/14/CREC-2007-11-14-pt1-PgS14375-2.pdf.

This final rule strengthens program standards so that all children and families receive high-quality services that will have a stronger impact on child development and outcomes and family well-being. The program performance standards set higher standards for curriculum, staff development, and program duration, all based on research and effective practice, while maintaining Head Start's core values of family engagement, parent leadership, and providing important comprehensive services to our nation's neediest children. At the same time, the final rule makes program requirements easier for current and future program leaders to understand and reduces administrative burden so that Head Start directors can focus on delivering high-quality early learning programs that help put children onto a path of success.

c.

Rulemaking and Comment Processes

We sought extensive input to develop this final rule. We began the rulemaking process with consultations, listening sessions, and focus groups with Head Start staff, parents, and program administrators, along with child development and subject matter experts, early childhood education program leaders, and representatives from Indian tribes, migrant and seasonal communities, and other constituent groups. We heard from tribal leaders at our annual tribal consultations. We studied the final report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Head Start Research. We consulted with national organizations and agencies with particular expertise and longstanding interests in early childhood education. In addition, we analyzed the types of technical assistance requested by and provided to Head Start agencies and programs. We reviewed findings from monitoring reports and gathered information from programs and families about the circumstances of populations Head Start serves. We considered advances in research-based practices with respect to early childhood education and development, and the projected needs of expanding Head Start services. We also drew upon the expertise of federal agencies and staff responsible for related programs in order to obtain relevant data and advice on how to promote quality across all Head Start settings and program options. We reviewed the studies on developmental outcomes and assessments for young children and on the workforce by the National Academy of Sciences.

14 15

We also reviewed the standards and performance criteria established by state Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, national organizations, and policy experts in early childhood development, health, safety, maternal health, and related fields.

14

National Academy of Sciences (October, 2008)

Early Childhood Assessment: Who, What, How.

Washington, DC.

15

National Academy of Sciences (April, 2015)

Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation.

Washington, DC.

We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on June 19, 2015 to solicit comments from the public. We extended the notice of proposed rulemaking comment period 30 days past our original deadline to September 17, 2015, to allow for more feedback from parents, grantees, and the Head Start community in general. We received, analyzed, and considered approximately 1,000 public comments to develop this final rule. Commenters included Head Start parents, staff, and management; national, regional, and state Head Start associations; researchers; early childhood, health, and parent organizations; policy think tanks; philanthropic foundations; Members of Congress; and other interested parties.

d.

Overview of Major Changes From the NPRM

The public comments addressed a wide range of issues. We made many changes to the program performance standards in response to those comments, which range from minor to significant. The most significant changes fall under several categories: Service duration, the central and critical role of parents in Head Start, staff qualifications to support high-quality, comprehensive service delivery, and health promotion.

First, we made changes to this final rule in response to the many public comments we received on the proposal to increase the duration of services children receive in Head Start. The changes to the service duration requirements in the final rule reflect concerns about local flexibility and access to Head Start for low-income children and their families. Instead of requiring all Head Start center-based programs to operate for at least 6 hours per day and 180 days per year as proposed in the NPRM, we changed the requirement to a minimum of 1,020 annual hours of planned class operations, which grantees will phase in for all of their center-based slots over five years. Similarly for Early Head Start, we changed the requirement in the NPRM for center-based programs to operate at least 6 hours per day and 230 days per year to 1,380 annual hours in this rule, and allow two years for programs to plan and implement this increase in service duration. These requirements balance the importance of increasing service duration with allowing greater local flexibility and more time for communities to adapt and potential funding to be secured.

Research supports the importance of longer preschool duration in achieving meaningful child outcomes and preparing children for success in school.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Shorter preschool programs may not have as much time to adequately support strong early learning outcomes for children and provide necessary comprehensive services.

24

25

26

In addition, the long

summer break in most Head Start programs likely results in summer learning loss that undermines gains children make during the program year.

27

28

29

Furthermore, part-day programs can undermine parents' job search, job training, and employment opportunities.

16

Robin, K.B., Frede, E.C., Barnett, W.S. (2006.)

NIEER Working Paper—Is More Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs Half-Day Preschool on Early School Achievement.

NIEER.

17

Votruba-Drzal, E., Li-Grining, C.P., & Maldonado-Carreno, C. (2008). A developmental perspective on full- versus part-day kindergarten and children's academic trajectories through fifth grade.

Child Development, 79,

957-978.

18

Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-day vs. half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more?

American Journal of Education, 112,

163-208.

19

Li, W. (2012).

Effects of Head Start hours on children's cognitive, pre-academic, and behavioral outcomes: An instrumental variable analysis.

Presented at Fall 2012 Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

20

Heckman, J.J., Moon, S.H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P.A., & Yavitz, A. (2010). The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program.

Journal of Public Economics, 94,

114-128.

21

Walters, C.R. (2015). Inputs in the Production of Early Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start,

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7

(4), 76-102.

22

Wasik, B. & Snell, E. (2015).

Synthesis of Preschool Dosage: Unpacking How Quantity, Quality and Content Impacts Child Outcomes.

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

23

Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013).

Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education.

Policy Brief. Foundation for Child Development.

24

DeCicca, P. (2007). Does full-day kindergarten matter? Evidence from the first two years of schooling.

Economics of Education Review, 26

(1), 67-82.; Cryan, J.R., Sheehan, R., Wiechel, J., & Bandy-Hedden, I. G. (1992). Success outcomes of full-day kindergarten: More positive behavior and increased achievement in the years after.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2),

187-203.

25

Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In Which Program Do Children Learn More?

American Journal of Education, 112(2),

163-208.

26

Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004).

Full-day and Half-day Kindergarten in the United States:

Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

27

Allington, R.L. & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). The Impact of Summer Setback on the Reading Achievement Gap.

The Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1),

68-75.; Fairchild, R. & Noam, G. (Eds.) (2007).

Summertime: Confronting Risks, Exploring Solutions.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

28

Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer Months and the School Year.

American Sociological Review, 69

(5), 613-635.

29

Benson, J., & Borman, G.D. (2010). Family, Neighborhood, and School Settings Across Seasons: When Do Socioeconomic Context and Racial Composition Matter for the Reading Achievement Growth of Young Children?

Teacher's College Record, 112

(5), 1338-1390.

In the NPRM, we proposed to increase the positive impact of Head Start programs serving three- to five-year-olds by increasing the minimum hours and days of operation and to codify long-standing interpretation of continuous services for programs that serve infants and toddlers, in concert with increasing standards for educational quality. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to require programs to serve three- to five-year-olds for at least 6 hours per day and 180 days per year and to require programs to serve infants and toddlers for a minimum of 6 hours per day and 230 days per year. Our proposal was consistent with research demonstrating the necessity of adequate instructional time to improve child outcomes and aligned with recommendations from the Secretary's Advisory Committee.

30

31

32

33

34

35

However, though the research is clear that longer duration matters, there is no clarity on an exact threshold or combination of hours and days needed to achieve positive child outcomes. Therefore, in response to a significant number of public comments on the NPRM, including comments from the national, state, and regional Head Start associations, the final rule defines full school day and full school year services as 1,020 annual hours for Head Start programs and defines continuous services as 1,380 annual hours for Early Head Start programs, instead of setting a minimum number of hours per day and days per year for each program. These adjusted requirements will give programs more flexibility to design their program schedules to better meet children and community needs as well as align with local school district calendars, where appropriate.

30

Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation: Final Report.

(2012). Washington, DC: Office of Head Start, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

31

Curenton, S.M., Justice, L.M., Zucker, T.A., & McGinty, A.S. (2014). Language and literacy curriculum and instruction. Chapter 15 in in

Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood,

Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

32

Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in

Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood,

Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

33

Justice, L.M., Mcginty, A., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A feasibility study.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41,

161-178.

34

Ginsburg, H.P., Ertle, B., & Presser, A.L. (2014). Math curriculum and instruction for young children. Chapter 16 in

Handbook of Response to Intervention in Early Childhood,

Buysee, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (Eds.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

35

Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J., (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum.

American Educational Research Journal, 45

(2), 443-494.

To further address the comments about service duration and ensure a smooth transition for children and families, the final rule also includes a staggered approach to increasing service duration for Head Start preschoolers over the next five years. This gradual transition will allow programs more time to plan and implement changes while also increasing families' access to full school day Head Start services and ensuring more children receive the high-quality early learning services to help them arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed. The final rule also gives the Secretary the authority to reduce the proportion of each grantee's center-based slots required to operate for a full school day and full school year if the Secretary determines that such a reduction is needed to avert a substantial reduction in slots. We believe the requirements in the final rule strike an appropriate balance between setting the policy research demonstrates will best support positive outcomes for children and families, while minimizing reduction in the number of children and families Head Start can serve.

Second, we received comments that expressed concern that the proposed changes to family engagement services and governance would result in a reduction in emphasis on family engagement processes, parent leadership, and parent influence on program policy. This was not our intent. The intent of the NPRM was for the family engagement standards to incorporate the changes made to governance in the 2007 reauthorization and align with the groundbreaking work Head Start has led through the development of the Parent, Family, and Community Engagement Framework. Family engagement has always been at the foundation of Head Start, and as such, the final rule retains many of the proposed improvements to family services that integrate research-based practices and provide greater local flexibility to help programs better meet family needs. However, given the perception that the changes would limit the role of parents and families in Head Start, the final rule includes several changes to more effectively reflect and maintain the important role of Head Start parents in leading Head Start programs, as well as the importance of family engagement to the growth and success of Head Start children. Specifically, we restore a requirement for parent committees, maintain and strengthen family partnership services (including goal setting), and strengthen the requirements for impasse procedures to make it clear that the policy council plays a leadership role in the administration of programs, rather than functioning in an advisory capacity. It is our expectation that the revisions to the final rule will ensure all grantees, programs, and parents understand the foundational role parents of Head Start children play in shaping the program at the local and national level.

Third, this final rule includes several changes in response to comments that suggested Head Start should use the revision of the program performance standards to set a higher bar for the delivery of quality comprehensive services. Specifically, this final rule includes a greater emphasis on staff qualifications and competencies for health, disabilities, and family services managers, as well as staff who work directly with children and families in the family partnership process. The qualification requirements represent minimum credentials we believe are critical to ensuring high-quality services. However, because we also recognize the important role of experience and community connections for such staff, these requirements are only for newly hired staff and, in some cases, give programs the flexibility to support staff in obtaining the credentials within 18 months of hire.

In response to public comments that the NPRM was not strong enough in addressing some serious public health issues, this final rule includes changes

that place a greater emphasis on certain health concerns, including childhood obesity prevention, health and developmental consequences of tobacco products and exposure to lead and support for mental health and social and emotional well-being. Given the prevalence of childhood obesity across the nation, especially among low-income children, we maintained important health and nutrition requirements and made specific changes to ensure Head Start actively engage in its prevention in the classroom and through the family partnership process. Given the serious health and developmental consequences of children's exposure to tobacco products, including second and third hand smoke, and to lead, we have explicitly required that programs offer parents opportunities to learn about these health risks and safety practices they can employ in their homes. We significantly strengthened the breadth and clarity on the requirements for programs to use mental health consultants to ensure Head Start programs are supporting children's mental health and social and emotional well-being. The final rule includes new provisions in the requirements for health, education, and family engagement services that elevate the role of Head Start programs in addressing these public health problems.

Additionally, through ongoing tribal consultations and the public comment process, we received important feedback from the American Indian and Alaska Native community. We made a number of changes specifically related to American Indian and Alaska Native programs based on these public comments and the unique and important sovereign relations with tribal governments. We added a new provision that for the first time makes it explicit that programs serving American Indian and Alaska Native children may integrate efforts to preserve, revitalize, restore, or maintain tribal language into their education services. We also clarified that, due to tribal sovereignty, American Indian and Alaska Native programs only need to consider whether or not they will participate in early childhood systems and activities in the state in which they operate.

In addition to these changes, the final rule maintains numerous changes proposed in the NPRM to strengthen program performance standards so all children and families receive high-quality services that will improve child outcomes and family well-being. We maintained and made important changes to strengthen service delivery. For example, we updated the prioritization criteria for selection and recruitment; made improvements to promote attendance; prohibited expulsion for challenging behaviors; strengthened services for children who are dual language learners (DLLs); and ensured critical supports for children experiencing homelessness or in foster care. Throughout the final rule we have made changes in response to public comments to make language clearer or more focused on outcomes rather than processes.

IV. Discussion of General Comments on the Final Rule

We received approximately 1,000 public comments on the NPRM with many commenters supporting our overall approach to revising the Head Start Program Performance Standards. Commenters appreciated our reorganization and streamlining, and agreed this made the standards more transparent and easier to understand. Commenters generally supported our approach to systems-based standards that are more focused on outcomes and less prescriptive and process-laden. They did note that how OHS monitored these standards would affect their implementation and impact. Commenters also appreciated our research-based approach. They noted our education and child development standards focused on the elements most important for supporting strong child outcomes. Commenters supported standards in the NPRM to improve services to children who are DLLs and their families. Commenters also supported our emphasis on reducing barriers and improving services to children experiencing homelessness and children in foster care. Overall, commenters agreed our proposal would improve program quality, clarify expectations, and reduce burden on programs.

We received a range of comments on our proposal to increase the minimum service duration for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Some commenters supported the proposal to increase duration, citing the research base and its importance to achieving strong child outcomes. Many commenters stated that without sufficient funds, this would lead to a reduction in the number of children and families Head Start served and this would be an unacceptable outcome. Other commenters raised concern or opposition for a variety of other reasons. We discuss and respond to these concerns in detail our discussion of part 1302, subpart B.

Many commenters were concerned that the NPRM overall reflected a reduced commitment to the role of parents in Head Start. They also pointed to specific proposals in different subparts and sections, which they stated contributed to a diminished role for parents. It was not our intent to diminish the role of parents in the Head Start program, and we have revised provisions in the final rule to ensure our intent for parent engagement is appropriately conveyed. We believe parent engagement is foundational to Head Start and essential to achieving Head Start's mission to help children succeed in school and beyond. We address specific comments on parent involvement and engagement and our responses in the discussions of the relevant sections.

Many commenters believed there were excessive references to the Act. They asked that the final regulation translate the references to the Act with specific language or brief excerpts from the Act. We maintained the same approach as we proposed in the NPRM to reference the provisions in the Act so that the regulation will not become obsolete if the provisions in the Act change. However, we intend to issue a training and technical assistance document that integrates language from the Act into the same document as the program performance standards to address commenters' interest in having a single document.

We also received other general comments or comments not tied to a specific section or provision of the rule. For example, some commenters offered general support for the Head Start program and noted it was important for Head Start to continue. One commenter thought we should have included examples of excellent Head Start programs. Commenters stated their overall opposition to the Head Start program or the NPRM as a whole, and others did not want Head Start program to continue to receive funding. Commenters stated that services for DLLs were emphasized too heavily in the regulation or that the standards for DLLs were too prescriptive. We believe DLLs are an appropriate priority in the regulation because the provisions reflect requirements in the Act and because it is important programs effectively serve DLLs because they are a rapidly growing part of both Head Start and the broader United States population. Commenters also offered specific suggestions on ways to clarify, enhance, or add language relevant to serving culturally and linguistically diverse children and families, including children who are DLLs throughout the NPRM. We incorporated some of the suggestions into the final rule but felt some were

already adequately covered while others were not feasible to include in regulation. We discuss these comments as appropriate in the relevant sections of the preamble.

Commenters also pointed out technical problems, such as incorrect cross references, typographical errors, or small inconsistencies in related provisions. We corrected these errors and made other needed technical changes, including edits to ensure descriptive titles throughout the final rule. Commenters also requested that we update existing data collections to account for changes in the program performance standards. As we make changes to the Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) and other data collections we sponsor, we will consider the final rule, but this is not a regulatory issue.

V. Discussion of Section by Section Comments on the Final Rule

We received many comments about changes we proposed to specific sections in the regulation. Below, we identify each section, summarize the comments, and respond to them accordingly.

Program Governance; Part 1301

This part describes program governance requirements for Head Start agencies. Program governance in Head Start refers to the formal structure in place “for the oversight of quality services for Head Start children and families and for making decisions related to program design and implementation” as outlined in section 642(c) of the Act. The Act requires this structure include a governing body and a policy council, or a policy committee at the delegate level. These groups have a critical role in oversight, design and implementation of Head Start and Early Head Start programs. The governing body is the entity legally and fiscally responsible for the program. The policy council is responsible for the direction of the program and must be made up primarily of parents of currently enrolled children. Parent involvement in program governance reflects the fundamental belief, present since the inception of Project Head Start in 1965, that parents must be involved in decision-making about the nature and operation of the program for Head Start to be successful in bringing about substantial change.

36

36

See

Federal Register

, 40 FR 27562, June 30, 1975.

We revised previous program governance requirements primarily to conform to the Act. We received many comments on part 1301. Below we discuss these comments and our rationale for any changes to the regulatory text in this subpart.

General Comments

Comment:

Many commenters offered reactions to part 1301. Commenters expressed general support for the requirements, indicating they reflect the statutory requirements, improve transparency, maintain the important role of parents, and increase local flexibility.

Other commenters stated this part was unnecessarily complicated for parents, policy council members, and staff to follow as presented in the NPRM. Many commenters suggested all governance requirements be clearly stated in the rule rather than referenced with statutory citation in order to improve clarity and reduce burden for programs, parents, and others.

Response:

As noted previously, we maintained the approach to cross reference to the Act so that the regulations will not become obsolete if the provisions in the Act change. However, we plan to issue a training and technical assistance document that incorporates the language from the Act with the regulatory language.

Comment:

Some commenters suggested we failed to address the role of shared governance in the Head Start program, and that we relied too heavily on the Act, which is vague and ambiguous, and leaves grantees wondering about the proper balance between the role and responsibility of the governing body and the policy council. These commenters ask that we include more specificity about shared governance in the final rule.

Response:

We continue to believe the best approach is to align the governance requirements in the rule with the language and requirements specified in the Act. The statutory language has directed the governance of Head Start programs since it was passed in 2007 and there have not been any significant problems with this approach.

Comment:

Commenters asked that we include “Tribal Council” wherever the phrase “governing body” occurs.

Response:

We do not believe this is necessary, since the tribal council is acting as the governing body.

Section 1301.1 Purpose

This section reiterates the requirement in section 642(c) of the Act regarding the structure and purpose of program governance. The structure as outlined in the Act includes a governing body, a policy council, and, for a delegate agency, a policy committee. We restored the requirement from the previous performance standards that programs also have parent committees as part of the governance structure, and we discuss this requirement in more detail in § 1301.4. This section emphasizes that the governing body has legal and fiscal responsibility to administer and oversee the program, and the policy council is responsible for the direction of the program including program design and operations and long- and short-term planning goals and objectives.

Comment:

Commenters recommended that we revise the language in this section to state clearly that each agency must establish a policy council.

Response:

We proposed in the NPRM to use the term “policy group” to encompass the policy council and the policy committee more concisely. We defined “policy group” to mean “the policy council and policy committee at the delegate level.” After further consideration and in response to comments, we reverted to using “policy council and policy committee at the delegate level.” It is lengthier but clearer. Instead of introducing a new term, we are remaining consistent with the Act.

Comment:

Some commenters raised concerns with the policy council being responsible for the direction of the Head Start program. Commenters stated it was unclear how the policy council could be effective in that role. Others said both the governing body and the policy council should be responsible for the direction of the program or that this responsibility should rest solely with the governing body.

Response:

We maintained the language proposed in the NPRM because it is the statutory requirement in the Act that the policy council is responsible for the direction of the Head Start and Early Head Start programs.

Section 1301.2 Governing Body

In the NPRM, this section described training requirements; however, we moved training requirements to § 1301.5 and this section now pertains to the governing body.

This section includes requirements for the composition of the governing body and its duties and responsibilities. It aligns with the Act's detailed requirements for the composition and responsibilities of the governing body. This section requires governing body members use ongoing monitoring results, data from school readiness goals, the information specified in section 642(d)(2) of the Act, and the information in § 1302.102 to conduct their responsibilities. Paragraph (c)

permits a governing body, at its own discretion, to establish advisory committees to oversee key responsibilities related to program governance, consistent with section 642(c)(1)(E)(iv)(XI) of the Act. Below we address comments and requests for clarification.

Comment:

We received some comments on the governing body's duties and responsibilities that addressed the duties and responsibilities of both the governing body and the policy council together. Some commenters requested we provide a clear illustration of the responsibilities and powers of the governing body and policy council by including a chart or diagram. Commenters also provided specific suggestions for revisions, such as: Add language from the previous performance standards on the duties and responsibilities of the governing body and policy council; remove language specific to ongoing monitoring and school readiness goals, as this is addressed in another section; and require that program goals inform the governing body and policy council.

Response:

We did not include a diagram or chart in this rule because we believe the governance provisions in the rule and in the Act are clear. In response to comments, we added to paragraph (b)(2) a cross-reference to the requirement in § 1302.102 related to establishing and achieving program goals. By adding this cross reference, we are requiring governing bodies to use this information to conduct their responsibilities.

Comment:

Some commenters offered support and raised concerns about the governing body's duties and responsibilities as laid out in paragraph (b). Some commenters supported the requirement that the governing body use ongoing monitoring results and school readiness goals to conducts it responsibilities, in addition to what is required in section 642(d)(2) of the Act. Some commenters suggested we enhance or clarify language about when programs needed to report to the responsible HHS official. Commenters also requested clarification about the governing body's responsibility to establish, adopt, and update Standards of Conduct, including reporting any violations to the regional office and about self-reporting requirements for immediate deficiencies.

Response:

The Act specifies that the governing body is responsible for establishing, adopting, and periodically updating written standards of conduct, so we believe this is addressed because we incorporated this requirement from the Act. We revised § 1302.90(a) to clarify the role of the governing body in standards of conduct, which we had inadvertently left out of that standard. We did not revise the requirement about self-reporting because it is addressed in § 1302.102.

Comment:

Many commenters stated the proposed rule was unclear about conflicts of interest. Commenters requested clarification about this provision and recommended adding language that mirrors the IRS Form 1023 Instructions, Appendix A, Sample Conflicts of Interest Policy.

Response:

We did not make changes to this language. There is guidance in the nonprofit community about the various ways to structure and apply a conflict of interest policy. If an agency wants to adopt the IRS rules, that would be one option, but it might not be the right option for all programs. Additionally, the governing body is required to develop a written conflict of interest policy, which can provide greater clarity than the overarching federal requirements.

Comment:

We received comments on advisory committees described in paragraph (c). Some commenters requested additional clarification, including who the advisory board is and what groups should be included and whether the governing body may establish more than one advisory committee. Others commenters suggested revisions to the advisory committee's role advisory committee with respect to the governing body. For example, commenters stated that all areas of program governance, especially supervision of program management, should be left in the hands of the Board of Directors or the established governing body. Some commenters noted that advisory committees should not make decisions about program governance because that is not advisory in nature. Other commenters made specific suggestions for the language related to advisory committees, such as eliminating the composition requirements, eliminating the requirement that advisory committees be established in writing, and differentiating between advisory committees that act as sub-boards versus other advisory committees.

Response:

To improve clarity, we revised and streamlined paragraph (c). We clarified that governing bodies may establish one or more advisory committees. We removed some of the more prescriptive requirements, such as written procedures or composition requirements, and explicitly required that when the advisory committee is overseeing key responsibilities related to program governance, it is the responsibility of the governing body to establish the structure, communication and oversight in a way that assures the governing body retains its legal and fiscal responsibility for the Head Start agency. This allows the governing body flexibility to structure their advisory committee but requires that they retain legal and fiscal responsibility for the Head Start agency. We also require the governing body to notify the responsible HHS official of its intent to establish such an advisory committee.

Section 1301.3 Policy Council and Policy Committee

In this section, we retain a number of requirements from the previous program standards and included requirements to conform to the Act. In paragraph (a), we retain the requirement for agencies to establish and maintain a policy council at the agency level and a policy committee at the delegate level, consistent with section 642(c)(2) and (3) of the Act. Paragraph (b) outlines the composition of policy councils, and policy committees at the delegate level, consistent with the Act. Paragraph (c) outlines the duties and responsibilities for the policy council and the policy committee to conform to the Act and is largely unchanged from the NPRM. Paragraph (d) addresses the term of service for policy council and policy committee members.

Comment:

Commenters recommended we include all of the statutory language from section 642(c)(2)(A) of the Act in this section, rather than summarizing that the policy council has responsibility for the direction of the program. Another recommended the policy committee at the delegate level be renamed to “Policy Action Committee” to eliminate programs from using “PC” for both policy council and policy committee.

Response:

We did not revise the concise reference to the policy council having responsibility for the direction of the program, although the Act's more expansive language is still part of the requirement. We maintain the terminology as it exists in the Act and did not rename “policy committee” at the delegate level.

Comment:

Commenters supported the standard in paragraph (b) to require proportional representation on the policy council by program option but also recommended revisions and asked for additional clarification. For example, commenters requested clarification on what proportional representation means and how to implement it within different program types.

Other commenters expressed support for the requirement that the majority of

policy council members be parents but requested that language be added to the rule, rather than just citing the Act. Others requested clarification on how appropriate composition will be maintained and consistent with the Act when parents drop out.

Response:

We revised paragraph (b) to clarify that parents of children currently enrolled in “each” program option must be proportionately represented on the policy council or the policy committee. We believe programs should have the flexibility to specify in their policies and procedures how the composition requirements will be maintained when parents drop out and did not make revisions to address this.

Comment:

Commenters expressed disagreement with language in the preamble to the NPRM stating, “We propose to remove current § 1304.50(b)(6) which excludes staff from serving on policy councils or policy committees with some exceptions. . .”. Commenters expressed confusion and stated this language has been interpreted to mean staff would be allowed to participate as a policy council or policy committee member. Though one commenter expressed support for allowing staff to serve on the policy council because they have field experience and skills to make informed decision, the commenters generally stated it is a conflict of interest and could inhibit parent driven decision-making.

Response:

In the NPRM, we proposed to remove § 1304.50(b)(6), which excludes staff from serving on policy councils or policy committees with some exceptions, because it is superseded by the Act. In other words, the conflict of interest language in the Act, as well as the Act's clarity on who can serve on the policy council, means we no longer need the prohibition on staff serving on policy council or policy committee. However, commenters noted the exception related to substitute teachers is helpful and clarifying for programs. Therefore, we added the majority of the language on this topic from the previous performance standards back into paragraph (b)(2) to ensure clarity.

Comment:

Commenters stated the Act gives the policy council responsibilities outside its scope of authority, and that the final rule should be modified to include language from the previous regulation related to duties and responsibilities. Commenters recommended we instead should focus the responsibilities of the policy council on program issues.

Response:

In the final rule, we maintained the alignment with the Act with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the policy council. We did not add the requested language from the previous regulation because it has been superseded by the Act.

Comment:

Some commenters requested that we clarify in the final rule the role of the policy council in hiring and terminating staff.

Response:

We did not include a specific provision on the role of policy council in hiring and terminating program staff because we rely on the language in section 642(c)(2)(D)(vi) of the Act.

Comment:

Many commenters supported allowing programs to establish in their bylaws five one-year terms for policy council members as opposed to three. Commenters said the change would support continuity, increase understanding of the complexities of the Head Start program and regulation, and promote investment in the policy council.

Some commenters opposed the option of extending policy council terms from three one-year terms to five. They stated that five years is too long, that parents may not have children in the program for five years, and that a shorter term would allow for more new members.

Response:

We did not revise this provision. This rule provides programs the discretion to establish in their bylaws the number of one-year terms of policy council members up to five one-year terms. Programs have the discretion of setting a lower limit.

Comment:

We received comments about the term “reasonable expenses” in paragraph (e). Commenters recommended we add a definition of “reasonable expenses,” allow that all participants on the policy council/committee be reimbursed for “reasonable expenses,” and allow agencies to develop their own policies and procedures to determine eligibility based on the need of their communities.

Response:

We did not clarify the definition of “reasonable” but allow programs to make a determination. We clarified that eligibility for the reimbursement is only for low-income members.

Section 1301.4 Parent Committees

Comment:

We received many comments about our proposal to remove the requirement for the parent committee. Some commenters supported the proposal to remove the parent committee requirement. They emphasized that there are more meaningful and inclusive ways to engage parents that could allow for individual program flexibility and innovation. These commenters suggested that the focus should instead be on providing opportunities for parents to learn about their children and engage them in teaching and learning and on family engagement outcomes.

Some commenters supported the removal of the parent committee requirement with reservations, but were concerned about the challenges it would pose for electing policy council representatives, about the loss of the benefits to parents previously derived from participation in parent committees, and about the perceived erosion of a core philosophy of Head Start. Others asked that the revised requirement ensure a structure for representing parent views and offering parents other opportunities for engagement.

Many commenters opposed the removal of parent committees. Commenters urged that we reinstate the parent committee requirement as it existed in the previous standards. These commenters stressed that parents are foundational to Head Start and that parent committees are a long-standing cornerstone of the program. They stated removing the requirement for parent committees would weaken Head Start parent engagement and diminish parents' role. Commenters noted that parent committees stimulate parent participation in the program, help parents develop leadership, advocacy and other useful skills, and are critical to developing membership for policy council. Commenters disagreed with our statement in the NPRM that parent committees do not work in all models, such as Early Head Start—Child Care Partnership (EHS-CCP) grantees, and suggested we help these grantees learn how to incorporate this valuable experience for parents in order to infuse a higher level of quality into child care settings. Commenters were also concerned that the removal of parent committee would result in the loss of in-kind contributions from parent involvement.

Some commenters opposed the removal of the parent committee requirement and asked that we make modifications or recommended alternative language in the final rule if the parent committee requirement is removed. These commenters stated similar concerns to those who requested that we reinstate the requirement, but made suggestions for the final rule, such as to allow individual programs to determine the design and structure of parent committees, or to support flexibility in local design of parent committees and proposals for alternate mechanisms to engage families. Some of these commenters believed that parent committees are not for all parents. These

commenters asked that programs be required to have a process in place that ensures all parents of enrolled children have local site opportunities to actively share their ideas, that parents understand the process for elections or nominations to serve on the policy council, and that a communication system exist to share information between parents attending local sites and the policy council and governing body.

Response:

We restored a requirement for a parent committee in this part and in a new § 1301.4. We also note that a parent committee is part of the formal governance structure in § 1301.1. This section clearly outlines the requirements for a program in establishing a parent committee and the minimum requirements for parent committees, which are consistent with all of the substantive requirements from the previous performance standards. We maintain the requirement that a program must establish a parent committee comprised exclusively of parents of currently enrolled children as early in the program year as possible and that the parent committee must be at the center level for center-based programs and at the local program level for other program options. In addition, in response to comments, we require programs to ensure parents of currently enrolled children understand the process for elections to policy council or policy committee or other leadership roles. Also as suggested by commenters, we allow programs flexibility within the structure of parent committees to determine the best methods and strategies to engage families that are most effective in their communities as long as the parent committee carries out specific minimum responsibilities. It requires that parent committees (1) advise staff in developing and implementing local program policies, activities, and services to ensure they meet the needs of children and families, and (2) participate in the recruitment and screening of Early Head Start and Head Start employees, both of which are retained from the previous performance standards. In response to comments we have added a requirement that the parent committee have a process for communication with the policy council and policy committee at the delegate level.

Section 1301.5 Training

This section describes the training requirements for the governing body, advisory committee members, and the policy council. It reflects section 642(d)(3) of the Act that requires governing body and policy council members to have appropriate training and technical assistance to ensure they understand the information they received and can oversee and participate in the agency's programs effectively. We moved this section from § 1301.2 in the NPRM to this placement in the final rule to improve overall clarity of part 1301. We discuss comments and our responses below.

Comment:

We received comments that requested clarification or suggested ways to improve clarity. We also received comments that expressed opposition for the requirement. For example, commenters requested clarification on what is considered “appropriate” training and what is included in training. One commenter requested clarification on the inclusion of advisory committee members in the training. Commenters recommended we move this section out of § 1301.2, and others recommended we improve clarity by cross-referencing training requirements in another section. Some commenters opposed our requirement that governing bodies be trained on the standards because they thought it was unrealistic to expect Boards to have knowledge of all the operating standards and it detracted from getting input from governing bodies on program outcomes.

Response:

We retained this requirement because it is required by the Act and because we believe governing bodies cannot effectively fulfill their program management responsibilities unless they have an understanding of the broader program requirements. Since governing bodies can choose to establish advisory committees, we included advisory committee members, who may be different individuals than governing body members, in this requirement.

To improve clarity, we moved these standards from § 1301.2 to this section so that it follows sections with the requirements for all components of an agency's formal governance structure. We revised the section to include a cross reference to training requirements in § 1302.12.

Section 1301.6 Impasse Procedures

This section on impasse procedures was found in § 1301.5 in the NPRM and is now § 1301.6 in the final rule. It describes procedural requirements for resolving disputes between an agency's governing body and policy council. We received many comments on our proposed impasse procedures. Many commenters believed our proposed impasse procedures weakened the role of parents in the Head Start program. They stated that we relegated the policy council, the majority of which is comprised of parents, to an advisory role by allowing the governing body the final decision when an impasse remained unresolved. In response to comments, we revised the impasse procedures. A discussion of the comments and our response is below.

Comment:

Many commenters opposed our proposal for the dispute resolution and impasse procedures. Commenters stated our impasse procedure proposal contributed to a broader weakening of the role of parents in Head Start because it tilted the power balance toward the governing body and away from the policy council. They also stated that the standards conflicted with other program performance standards in this section and requirements in the Act. For example, they stated the proposal conflicted with the requirement for “meaningful consultation and collaboration about decisions of the governing body and policy council.” Commenters stated that conflicts often result from issues related to the direction of the program, which is the responsibility of the policy council. These commenters suggested that the proposed requirements amount to capitulation to the will of the governing body and are not actually impasse procedures, in contradiction with the Act's requirement. Others commenters noted further contradiction given the standards would require the governing body and policy council to work together yet exclude the policy council and allow the governing body to make the final decision. Some commenters stated that they embrace shared governance and provided examples of how the voice of parents has been critical to their decision-making during, for example, sequestration or previous impasses. Commenters made recommendations, such as adding formal mediation, strengthening the language related to “meaningful consultation and collaboration about decisions of the governing body and the policy council,” referring to the impasse procedures as a consensus-building process, and establishing an independent arbitrator or third party to resolve disputes between the governing body and policy council.

We also received comments supporting the impasse procedures proposed in the NPRM. Some of these commenters stated that it is appropriate for the governing body, since they bear legal and fiscal responsibility, to make the ultimate decisions on issues related to the Head Start program after taking into consideration the recommendations of the policy council and policy committee, if applicable. Further, commenters asked for additional

clarification about our proposed requirements, including the timeline for resolution.

Response:

For clarity, we included the statutory language that requires “meaningful consultation and collaboration about decisions of the governing body and policy council,” and we maintained requirements from the previous performance standards about these bodies jointly establishing written procedures for resolving internal disputes. We revised the requirements in this section to clarify the role of policy councils in the governance of Head Start programs, including processes to resolve conflicts with the governing body in a timely manner, and we included more specificity about what impasse procedures must include in order to better articulate the balanced process. In paragraph (b), we included a new standard that requires that in the event the decision-making process does not result in a resolution of the impasse, the governing body and policy council must select a mutually agreeable third party mediator and participate in a formal process that leads to a resolution. In paragraph (c), we require the governing body and policy council to select a mutually agreeable arbitrator, whose decision will be final, if no resolution resulted from mediation. Due to tribal sovereignty, we excluded American Indian and Alaska Native programs from the requirement in paragraph (c) to use an arbitrator.

Program Operations; Part 1302

Overview

In § 1302.1, we made a technical change to remove paragraph (a) because the content of this paragraph was already included in the statutory authority for this rule and for this part and is therefore unnecessary to repeat here. Therefore what was paragraph (b) in the NPRM is an undesignated paragraph in the final rule.

Eligibility, Recruitment. Selection, Enrollment and Attendance; Subpart A

In this subpart, we combined all previous requirements related to child and family eligibility, and program requirements for the recruitment, selection, and enrollment of eligible families. We updated these standards to reflect new priorities in the Act, including a stronger focus on children experiencing homelessness and children in foster care. We added new standards to reflect the importance of attendance for achieving strong child outcomes. Further, we included new standards to clarify requirements for children with persistent and disruptive behavioral issues as well as new standards to support programs serving children from diverse economic backgrounds, when appropriate. Commenters supported our reorganization of these requirements and our emphasis on special populations. Commenters were particularly appreciative of the standards throughout the section that were designed to reduce barriers to the participation of children experiencing homelessness. We made technical changes for improved clarity. We discuss additional comments and our responses below.

General Comments

Comment:

Commenters recommended adding language that specifically encouraged the recruitment and enrollment of children who are culturally and linguistically diverse, and/or prioritizing linguistically diverse children for enrollment.

Response:

We do not think it is necessary to explicitly encourage recruitment or prioritization of culturally and linguistically diverse children. Twenty-nine percent of Head Start children come from homes where a language other than English is the primary language.

37

Additionally, as described in § 1302.11(b)(1)(i), the community assessment requires programs to examine the eligible population in their service area, including race, ethnicity, and languages spoken. A program must then use this information when it establishes selection criteria and prioritization of participants, as described in § 1302.14(a)(1).

37

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2015).

Office of Head Start Program Information Report, 2014-2015.

Washington, DC: Author.

Section 1302.10 Purpose

This section provides a general overview of the content in this subpart. We received no comments directly for this section but made changes to be consistent with revisions in § 1302.11.

Section 1302.11 Determining Community Strengths, Needs, and Resources

This section includes the requirements for how programs define a service area for their grant application and the requirements for a community assessment. We streamlined the standards to improve clarity and reduce bureaucracy. In addition, we eliminated a prohibition on overlapping service areas, added new data as required by the Act for consideration in the community assessment to ensure community needs are met, and aligned the community assessment to a program's five-year grant cycle. We also required that programs consider whether they could serve children from diverse economic backgrounds in addition to the program's eligible funded enrollment in order to support mixed-income service delivery, which research suggests benefits children's early learning.

38 39

Below, we summarize and respond to the comments we received.

38

Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L., M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during pre-kindergarten.

Child Development, 80

(3), 686-702.

39

Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K., (2007). Do peers influence children's skill development in preschool?

Economics of Education Review, 26

(1), 100-112.

Comment:

Many commenters opposed or expressed concern about our proposal to eliminate the prohibition on overlapping service areas. For example, commenters stated that overlapping service areas will be confusing and will cause conflict because of competition between grantees. Many commenters suggested we include a process for mediation when there are disputes. Commenters supported our decision to remove the prohibition on overlapping service areas.

Response:

We believe removing the prohibition on overlapping service areas gives greater flexibility to local programs in a manner that will benefit the children and families they serve. Grantees may request additional guidance through the system of training and technical assistance. Therefore, we did not reinstate the prohibition on overlapping service areas in this rule.

Comment:

We received a few different recommendations for additional criteria for defining service area. For example, many commenters recommended we include parents' job locations as part of the service area.

Response:

While the service area is based on children's residence, this rule, as well as the previous regulation, is silent on whether a program can enroll a child that lives outside of the service area if their parents work in that area. We believe programs already have the flexibility to determine whether a child should be enrolled at a program closer to a parent's workplace and will clarify any existing sub-regulatory guidance to reflect this flexibility. We made no changes to this provision.

Comment:

We received suggestions for paragraph (b)(1) to more explicitly address the purpose and the goal of the community needs assessment, to add additional or change criteria to the data (either on the five-year cycle or annually), and to provide more guidance on how programs should

obtain data for the community needs assessment.

Response:

We made changes to the section title and clarified that the community assessment should be strengths-based. We think these changes, together with using the full name of the community assessment—“community wide strategic planning and needs assessment”—better reflect the purpose of the assessment. We revised paragraph (b)(1) to clarify that this list is not exhaustive, and reorganized the list to make it more logically flow. We also revised paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to also include prevalent social or economic factors that impact their well-being. We did not believe additional data requirements were necessary because programs already have the flexibility to include other relevant data in their community assessments. We clarified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) that homelessness data should be obtained in collaboration with McKinney-Vento liaisons to the extent possible, but it is important that all programs consider the prevalence of homelessness in their community, however possible. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has identified data gaps in tribal communities on young children experiencing homelessness, so we recognize tribal programs may need to utilize alternative methods to ensure they fully consider the prevalence of homelessness in their communities.

Comment:

We received comments about our proposal in paragraph (b)(1) to change the community assessment from a three-year to a five-year timeline that would align with a program's five-year grant cycle. Some commenters supported this change because it removed unnecessary burden on programs. Commenters expressed concern that communities change rapidly and that five years is not frequent enough to review community needs.

Response:

We think we strike the right balance between ensuring programs regularly assess and work to meet their community needs through an annual re-evaluation of particular criteria described in paragraph (b)(2) and § 1302.20(a)(2) and reduction of undue burden through alignment of the community assessment to the five-year grant cycle. We made no revisions to this timeline.

Comment:

Many commenters recommended we change the requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that programs must annually review and update the community assessment to reflect any significant changes to the availability of publicly-funded full-day pre-kindergarten. These commenters expressed concern that public pre-kindergarten programs may not meet the needs of at-risk families because they do not offer a full spectrum of comprehensive services. Commenters offered specific suggestions for other community demographics to be considered in the annual review.

Response:

Since the requirement to conduct community assessments was changed from every three years to every five years, this provision was intended to ensure programs annually capture what may be quickly changing demographic and policy landscape characteristics in their community. Emergence or expansion of publicly funded pre-kindergarten may offer new opportunities for partnerships and collaborations or it may offer new opportunities to extend the hours children receive services. We retained the standard that programs review and update the annual assessment to reflect any increase in the availability of publicly-funded pre-kindergarten including but not limited to “full-day” programs. In addition, we clarify that this review and update should take into account whether the pre-kindergarten available meets the needs of the population of the grantee serves. We revised paragraph (b)(2) to also include significant shifts in community resources, because community demographics was too narrow.

Comment:

We received some comments in support of our proposed standard in paragraph (b)(3) for programs to consider whether characteristics of the community allow them to operate classes with children from diverse economic backgrounds. These commenters noted research demonstrates participation in mixed-income classes is beneficial to children from low-income families and stated the standard would support a broader notion of innovative funding models. We also received many comments requesting additional guidance to ensure this standard did not result in fewer services for income eligible children.

Response:

The intent of this requirement is for Head Start programs to consider whether it is feasible to implement a mixed-income delivery model. Research finds such models to be beneficial to the educational outcomes of children from low-income families.

40 41

However, we revised this paragraph to clarify programs must not enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if it would result in them serving less than their eligible funded enrollment. In addition, to both support consideration of innovative funding models and clarify our intent that children funded through other sources must not receive services instead of children eligible for Head Start, we revised paragraph (b)(3), and §§ 1302.15(d) and 1302.18(b)(2).

40

Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during pre‐kindergarten.

Child Development, 80

(3), 686-702.

41

Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers influence children's skill development in preschool?

Economics of Education Review, 26

(1), 100-112.

Section 1302.12 Determining, Verifying, and Documenting Eligibility

This section includes the process for programs to determine, verify, and document child and family eligibility for Head Start programs. We reorganized these requirements to clarify and better reflect best practices in the field. We also made technical and structural changes to standards that caused confusion in the field after publication in February 2015 of the final rule on eligibility, to eliminate duplication, and to update terms such as replacing “land-base” with “service area.”

Comment:

Commenters suggested changes to paragraph (a), which provides an overview of the process to determine, verify, and document eligibility. Suggestions included a recommendation to delineate more specific conditions under which alternative methods for eligibility determination would be approved and when in-person interviews would always be required.

Response:

We made one revision to paragraph (a). We noted that telephone interviews could be permitted when it was more convenient for the family and eliminated the need to document the reason. Otherwise we made no revisions as we think paragraph (a)(3) is broad enough to provide flexibility and encourage innovation at the local level.

Comment:

Many commenters expressed concern about the age provisions in paragraph (b). For example, some supported children transitioning to Head Start as soon as they turn three years old, whereas others suggested children stay in Early Head Start until the next program year. Others suggested that transitions should be based on developmental needs rather than birthdays. Many commenters were concerned about how the standards in this paragraph and paragraph (j) interacted with the allocation of funds for Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships (EHS-CC Partnerships). Specifically, commenters were concerned that EHS-CC Partnerships

can serve children up to 48 months of age for family child care, and paragraph (b)(1) states a “child must be an infant or a toddler younger than three years old.”

Response:

The ages children are eligible for Early Head Start are defined by the Act and not subject to regulatory change. The rule sets forth reasonable flexibility for transitioning children to Head Start or other early learning programs when they turn three years of age. Additional standards for this transition are in subpart G. Thus, we made no changes to provisions in this section regarding children turning three years of age. Further, the EHS-CC Partnerships appropriation explicitly allowed serving children up to 48 months old for family child care, which supersedes regulatory language.

Comment:

Commenters noted Head Start eligibility in paragraph (b) should not be tied to compulsory school attendance because in some states that would mean Head Start would have to serve children up to age six or seven.

Response:

It is clear from program data that standard practice is that Head Start programs serve children until they are eligible for kindergarten. However, the Act explicitly references eligibility up to compulsory school age. In addition, we think the final rule allows flexibility in the very rare circumstances it is needed. We made no revisions to these provisions.

Comment:

We received many comments on eligibility requirements in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). For example, commenters recommended changes for income eligibility, continuous eligibility between Early Head Start and Head Start programs, new groups for categorical eligibility, and flexibility to reallocate funds at program discretion between Early Head Start and Head Start programs. Commenters also recommended changes in paragraph (j) of this section to address continuous eligibility. Commenters recommended we change prioritization requirements. Commenters also requested additional clarification for some of the proposed criteria, including on the definition of public assistance and absence of child care.

Response:

Most suggestions for amendments to eligibility would require legislative action by Congress and cannot be changed through regulation. For other suggestions, we want to allow local programs the flexibility in their selection process to determine which children and families are most in need. Therefore, we made no revisions to income eligibility, groups for categorical eligibility, or prioritization requirements. We made technical changes in this section to clarify that categorical eligibility is not a separate term used for eligibility. In addition, we made changes in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to clarify that families are eligible if the child is receiving a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) child-only payment. Finally we made technical changes in paragraph (d)(1) to correct the wording that implied individuals were ineligible at 100-130% of poverty. Programs may request additional guidance through the system of training and technical assistance.

Comment:

Commenters recommended modifying standards to allow programs to participate in a community wide and/or statewide recruitment and intake processes.

Response:

Programs already have the flexibility to participate in such systems and are expected to collaborate with community partners to ensure they are serving the children most in need. No revisions were made regarding this issue.

Comment:

We received some comments about verification standards for public assistance described in paragraph (i). Some commenters supported the standards, noting they would ensure uniform practices across programs. Others opposed them or expressed concerns, with some stating they would be costly, and would delay enrollment. Commenters requested additional clarification for standards in this paragraph, including what was meant by “all” tax forms.

Response:

We agree that the verification standards for public assistance will ensure uniform practices across programs and believe this is important to program integrity even if it may cause some delays, so we have not changed this language. We added language to the standard in paragraph (i)(1)(i) to include proof of income from individuals who are self-employed. This is meant to clarify that income sources from informal work, such as day laborers, should be included for income eligibility. Additionally we removed “all” before tax forms. We realize that programs want to be conscientious about proper eligibility verification so we will continue to provide guidance and support about the implementation of these standards as requested.

Comment:

As noted previously, some commenters submitted suggestions about eligibility duration standards in paragraph (j). Some commenters recommended changes that would facilitate eligibility from Early Head Start to Head Start. Commenters noted that the standard in paragraph (j)(4) can complicate a program's enrollment of over-income slots if an eligible family becomes more self-sufficient during their time in Head Start.

Response:

The Act sets forth the requirements for the re-determination of eligibility for Head Start after Early Head Start so we do not have authority to change these standards. We believe programs have enough flexibility in their prioritization criteria in paragraph (j)(4), so we did not make changes.

Comment:

Commenters requested clarification of the standards in paragraph (m) about eligibility training. For example, commenters were confused by outdated language in paragraph (m)(3).

Response:

To improve clarity of this paragraph, technical changes were made to eliminate language in paragraph (m)(3), which was unnecessary and confusing because it noted an outdated timeline tied to the final eligibility rule published in February 2015.

Section 1302.13 Recruitment of Children

This section maintained and streamlined standards from the previous rule about the goal of recruitment efforts and some specific efforts a program must make.

Comment:

We received some comments on this section, including requests for clarification and recommendations for additional emphasis on recruitment of certain populations.

Response:

Programs are required to serve children with disabilities as at least 10 percent of their funded enrollment. Therefore, requiring active recruitment for this specific population is appropriate. We added that programs should also actively recruit other vulnerable populations, including homeless children and children in foster care, and provided programs with the flexibility to define these populations based on their community assessment.

Section 1302.14 Selection Process

This section describes the selection process and specific criteria programs must use to weigh the selection of eligible children. It includes a new requirement for programs to prioritize serving younger children if they operate in a service area with high-quality publicly funded pre-kindergarten. This section also included standards to conform with provisions from the Act that require at least 10 percent of a program's total enrollment to be children eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Commenters appreciated the emphasis on a priority for children experiencing homelessness and children

in foster care. We address these and other suggestions below.

Comment:

For a number of reasons, many commenters opposed the standard in paragraph (a)(3) that would require programs to prioritize serving younger children if publicly-funded pre-kindergarten is available for a full school day. For example, commenters were concerned this requirement would limit families with 4-year-olds from receiving the full range of comprehensive services and supports offered by Head Start. They were also concerned it would interfere with or even unravel partnerships with publicly-funded pre-kindergarten programs. Some commenters stated this provision interfered with tribal sovereignty. Some commenters supported greater priority for younger children and some recommended we include additional standards to further this goal. Commenters also recommended that American Indian and Alaska Native programs be exempt from this requirement.

Response:

We have maintained this requirement because we believe programs should be serving more 3-year-olds and infants and toddlers in areas where there is high-quality, accessible pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds. We revised this standard to reflect that the high-quality publicly funded pre-kindergarten must be accessible for the requirement to apply and clarified that this priority is part of the selection criteria programs establish as described in paragraph (a)(1). This, for example, would give programs flexibility to weigh other criteria that would not disrupt programs serving siblings or a child with a disability if it was determined this was the best placement. We also clarified that this prioritization would not be required if it interfered with partnerships with local educational agencies. Finally, we revised this requirement to clarify that American Indian and Alaska Native and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs must only consider this prioritization.

Comment:

We received some comments about the requirement in paragraph (b) for 10 percent of a program's funded enrollment to be composed of children eligible for services under IDEA. Some commenters supported this standard. Some commenters stated it was a difficult standard to meet in rural communities, and others recommended it be calculated across a grantee's Early Head Start and Head Start enrollment. Some commenters requested additional clarification, and some commenters requested we add specific criteria for the waiver for this standard and requested children with disabilities be given the first priority on any waiting list until the 10 percent requirement is met.

Response:

This standard is required by the Act. Therefore, we cannot revise its calculation. We slightly revised the language in paragraph (b)(1) to better clarify the 10 percent is calculated from a program's total funded enrollment. Our current waiver process evaluates whether programs are making reasonable efforts to comply with the 10 percent requirement. Nationally, more than 12 percent of Head Start enrollment is comprised of children with disabilities, so we do not believe a change is necessary.

42

42

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2015).

Office of Head Start Program Information Report, 2014-2015.

Washington, DC: Author.

Comment:

Some commenters recommended changes to waiting list requirements in paragraph (c). Some recommended less focus on a waitlist and some recommended more focus and specificity.

Response:

We believe the standard in paragraph (c) is appropriate to ensure any openings during the program year get filled promptly. We made no revisions.

Section 1302.15 Enrollment

This section reorganized and revised previous standards about enrollment. It includes requirements about how quickly programs must fill vacancies and efforts they must undertake to maintain enrollment of eligible children for subsequent years. It includes standards to reduce barriers to enroll children experiencing homelessness. This section includes new standards about reserving slots for pregnant women, children experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. This section also includes a new standard to allow the enrollment of children who are funded through non-Head Start sources, including private pay. Further, this section includes a standard that clarified current policy that required programs to follow their state immunization enrollment and attendance requirements. We moved the standard from § 1302.17(c) in the NPRM to paragraph (f) to improve clarity. We received many comments on this section, which we discuss below.

Comment:

We received comments opposed to our proposal in paragraph (a) that programs must fill any vacancy within 30 days because the previous performance standards did not require programs to fill a vacancy within 60 days of the end of the program year. Commenters expressed a variety of reasons for their opposition, such as difficulty meeting all of the comprehensive service requirements in the allotted time period.

Response:

We retained this provision with minor technical changes because we believe the provision of comprehensive services is beneficial to children—even during a period of 60 days or less. In addition, in some programs, 60 days represents one-quarter of the program year and allowing such a long period of vacancy represents lost opportunity and wasted funds. Furthermore, enrollment within the last 60 days of the program year will facilitate service delivery for the following program year.

Comment:

We received comments that the standard proposed on eligibility duration that appeared in paragraph (b)(2) of the NPRM was redundant and unnecessary because of standards in § 1302.12(j)(2) and (3).

Response:

We agree and have struck the provision that was paragraph (b)(2) in the NPRM.

Comment:

We received many comments recommending changes to the standard in paragraph (b)(2) (formerly paragraph (b)(3) of the NPRM) that allows a program to maintain a child's enrollment for a third year under exceptional circumstances as long as family income is re-verified. For example, some commenters recommended we strike this provision because it was inconsistent with § 1302.12(b)(2) and the Act. Other commenters requested we define “exceptional circumstances” for better clarity. Many commenters recommended the standard be clarified to apply specifically to Head Start and include services for five-year-olds in states where compulsory education does not begin until age six.

Response:

This standard is not new and we do not believe it has caused significant confusion in the past. However, we made revisions to clarify this requirement is specific to Head Start. Programs may request additional guidance, if needed.

Comment:

Some commenters recommended we revise paragraph (b) to establish continuous eligibility for children from the time they enroll in Early Head Start until they enter kindergarten.

Response:

As previously noted, eligibility is set by statute. Such a change is outside the scope of this rule.

Comment:

We received many comments that supported the provision in paragraph (b)(3) (formerly paragraph (b)(4) in the NPRM) that programs maintain enrollment for children who

are homeless or in foster care. Some commenters expressed concern about the proposed standard. Commenters supporting the provision noted its importance to support stability and continuity for children experiencing homelessness and children in foster care. Some commenters stated the standard should be made stronger. Some commenters were concerned about the provision and recommended it be struck because maintaining enrollment would be too costly.

Response:

We retained this provision with no revisions. Programs may request technical assistance to support their efforts to maintain enrollment for these children.

Comment:

We received comments that supported the provision in paragraph (c) to require a program to use their community assessment to determine if there are families experiencing homelessness or children in foster care in the area who could benefit from services and allowing programs flexibility to reserve up to three percent of slots for special populations. Commenters noted its importance in Head Start serving vulnerable children. Others supported the standard but recommended we expand it in a variety of ways. Others recommended changes, such as making the slot reservation a requirement instead of an allowance, adding additional subgroups for whom slots could be reserved, or allowing up to six percent of slots be reserved. Some commenters requested additional guidance on implementation.

Response:

We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance between reserving slots for particularly vulnerable children while maintaining availability for other eligible children who need Head Start services. Reserved enrollment slots will not be counted as under-enrollment. Programs may request additional guidance on implementation as necessary. We made no revisions to this standard.

Comment:

Some commenters expressed concern about the flexibility to reserve slots for the specified populations and concerns about the timeline allowed for such reservation, as described in paragraph (c). Some commenters were concerned the slots would remain unused throughout the year and some were concerned that it was unrealistic to fill the slots within 30 days. Others were concerned that the record keeping would be too burdensome.

Response:

The rule is clear that if the reserved enrollment slot is not filled within 30 days, the slot becomes vacant and then must be filled within an additional 30 days. We believe we have achieved an appropriate balance between reserving slots for particularly vulnerable children for an appropriate length of time while maintaining availability for other eligible children. We believe this provision will foster enrollment of particularly vulnerable children and do not agree that it is too burdensome. We note that programs are allowed but not required to reserve such slots.

Comment:

We received comments in support of and opposed to the standard proposed in paragraph (d) for programs to consider the feasibility to enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds who would be funded from other sources. Commenters were concerned this standard could lead to serving fewer Head Start eligible children. Other commenters requested clarifications.

Response:

As noted previously, we revised a related standard in § 1302.11(b)(3) to better clarify that programs must consider the feasibility of operating mixed-income programs but that they must not enroll children from diverse economic backgrounds if it would result in a program serving less than their eligible funded enrollment. We believe this additional clarification addresses commenters' concerns that the proposed standard would mean fewer eligible Head Start children would be served. To further clarify our intent, we revised the standard in paragraph (d) to reduce redundancy and make it clear that children from diverse economic backgrounds who are funded with other sources are not considered part of a program's eligible funded enrollment. We think § 1302.11, which addressed how a program should consider their community assessment, is the more appropriate placement for consideration of the feasibility of mixed-income groups.

Section 1302.16 Attendance

This section included provisions to support attendance. Research finds that attendance is essential for children to benefit from program experiences that promote success in preschool and beyond.

43 44 45

Therefore, in addition to provisions from the Act to address systemic issues of a program's low monthly average daily attendance, we included new proposals to emphasize the importance of regular attendance for each child. Commenters generally supported the new emphasis and some commenters noted it would help programs identify family needs. However, many commenters opposed or expressed concern about the specific proposals and offered alternative suggestions. We discuss these comments below.

43

Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Pareja, A.S., & Allensworth, E.M. (2013). Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools.

Research Summary.

University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

44

Community Action Project Tulsa County. (2012).

Attendance Works Peer Learning Network Webinar.

45

Connolly, F., & Olson, L.S. (2012). Early Elementary Performance and Attendance in Baltimore City Schools' Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten.

Baltimore Education Research Consortium.

Comment:

We received many comments about the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) that programs contact parents if a child is unexpectedly absent and the parent has not contacted the program within one hour. Many commenters opposed the requirement, and stated it was too prescriptive and cumbersome. Some commenters also found the provision unclear and objected to the one-hour timeline. Some commenters supported the one-hour timeline because it promoted child safety and reduced the risk of a child being left in a car or on a bus.

Response:

We believe it is critically important that programs contact parents in a very timely manner to ensure children's well-being. We revised the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to be more systems-focused and have clarified that the program must “attempt to” contact the parent because it may not always be possible to reach the parent. However, we believe it is important for programs to ensure children's well-being by contacting parents when children are unexpectedly absent and parents have not contacted the program within one hour of program start time, so we have maintained this requirement.

Comment:

We received many comments on the provision in paragraph (a)(2) about steps a program must take to improve attendance for children who have four or more consecutive unexcused absences or are frequently absent. Some commenters were generally supportive of this provision. Many commenters expressed concerns that the requirements were too prescriptive or too costly for programs. Some commenters were concerned that since low attendance was often linked to family crises, home visits would pose significant challenges. Many commenters stated the emphasis on attendance should be more systems-focused. Commenters recommended alternative language. Some commenters requested additional guidance for implementation.

Response:

We believe regular and consistent attendance is essential for

programs to support children's early learning. We also think that inconsistent attendance often indicates a program needs to make more efforts to engage with and support families. We think it is very important for programs to realize the importance of regular attendance and work with families when appropriate to foster regular attendance. Therefore, we retained a strong focus on supporting attendance in the final rule. To further strengthen this requirement and clarify when frequent absences must be addressed, we revised paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to reflect that programs must conduct a home visit or other direct contact with parents if children experience multiple unexplained absences, such as two or more consecutive unexplained absences. Unexplained absences would not include days a child is sick if the parent let the program know that the child was out because of an illness. We also added paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to require programs to use individual child attendance data to identify children with patterns of absence that put them at risk of missing ten percent of program days per year and develop appropriate strategies to improve individual attendance among identified children, such as direct contact with parents or intensive case management as necessary. Programs may request technical assistance to address the causes of absenteeism.

Comment:

Some commenters stated the requirement about program-wide attendance in paragraph (b) should be triggered at a lower percentage for infants and toddlers.

Response:

We believe the 85 percent threshold is appropriate for Early Head Start and Head Start programs and has been the long-standing threshold in the previous Head Start regulation. We retained this provision as proposed.

Comment:

We received many comments about the provision in paragraph (c)(1), which provides flexibility to support the attendance of children experiencing homelessness. Many commenters were concerned about the reference to birth certificates in our proposal for fear it implied programs can require birth certificates for enrollment. Many commenters supported the flexibility but were concerned about how to satisfy federal and state requirements when they are in conflict. Some commenters were concerned this standard would pose a public health concern.

Response:

Birth certificates are not required for enrollment. We have revised paragraph (c) to eliminate confusion. Additionally, in order to address the conflict between the program performance standards and state licensing requirements and any public health concerns, we have clarified that programs must defer to state licensing requirements. However, since it is important that children without proper immunizations get up to date and attend Head Start as soon as possible, we also strengthened the standard to require programs to work with families to get children immunized as soon as possible.

Comment:

Some commenters stated the provision in paragraph (c)(2) about providing transportation for children experiencing homelessness where possible was too stringent. Some commenters stated it was not strong enough and recommended requirements that mirror those in the McKinney-Vento Act. Some commenters requested additional clarification about using program funds if community resources are unavailable.

Response:

A program may use program funds to provide transportation to all children in the program or to a subset, such as homeless children. However, approximately 40 percent of programs provide transportation services. We believe the requirement for programs to use community resources if available to transport homeless children while allowing but not requiring the use of program funds to do so is the appropriate approach, and have not changed this provision.

Section 1302.17 Suspension and Expulsion

This section outlines the program performance standards pertaining to the suspension and expulsion of Head Start children. These standards codify long-standing practice to prohibit expulsion of Head Start children. However, given recent research that indicates suspensions and expulsions occur at high rates in preschool settings,

46 47 48

we explicitly require all programs to prohibit expulsion and limit suspension in Head Start and Early Head Start settings and further require programs to take steps, based on best practices, to support the social, emotional and other development of children who demonstrate serious behavioral issues.

46

Gilliam, W.S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development.

47

Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state.

Infants & Young Children, 19,

228-245.

48

Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M., Ancona, R., Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T. (2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion.

Pediatrics, 131

(3), e1000-e1007.

In general, many commenters were supportive of the standards described in this section. However, some commenters expressed concern about the implementation of these standards if, for example, parents refuse mental health consultation, programs lack specialized staff, and alternative placements for children are not available. Below, we summarize and respond to these and other comments on this section.

Comment:

Commenters recommended we define “suspension” and “expulsion.”

Response:

We did not add definitions for these terms. We note that other Federal laws contain requirements and safeguards when children with disabilities are suspended or expelled. IDEA's discipline procedures apply to children with disabilities as defined in section 602(3) of IDEA in Head Start Programs. See IDEA section 615(k), 20 U.S.C. 1415(k) and 34 CFR 300.530 through 300.536.

There are other safeguards for children who are not served under IDEA but who are protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II), 42 U.S.C. 12131

et seq.,

because they satisfy the definition of disability in those Acts. Those statutes, IDEA, Section 504, and Title II also do not contain definitions for the terms “suspension” or “expulsion.” We expect programs to consider their ordinary and customary meanings. However, we think this section makes clear our expectations about supporting children instead of suspending and expelling them.

Comment:

Some commenters suggested we revise the suspension requirements in paragraph (a) to provide more support for children who may be temporarily suspended for challenging behavior. Others recommended we completely prohibit suspension instead of requiring programs to severely limit the use of suspension. Some commenters suggested we require programs document the support services provided to each child during a temporary suspension and upon their return. Commenters also recommended we require programs to conduct home visits during any temporary suspension. Other commenters requested we require specific interventions, such as early childhood mental health consultation before a temporary suspension is permitted.

Response:

We agree that instances where temporary suspensions are appropriate should be considered extremely rare. Young children with

challenging behaviors should be supported and not excluded. Therefore, the provision in paragraph (a)(1) requires the program to prohibit or severely limit the use of suspension. We agree that our requirements for limitation on suspension did not appropriately focus enough on preventive and support services. We revised paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to ensure appropriate support services in the extremely rare circumstances where programs consider suspension for the safety of children or staff. We revised paragraph (a)(3) to require programs to engage with mental health consultants and parents before a program decides on a temporary suspension. In addition, we revised paragraph (a)(4) to engage with a mental health consultant and parents and provide supportive services such as home visits, and written plans of action, to support a child during a temporary suspension to facilitate their full participation in all program activities.

Comment:

Many commenters generally supported our requirements, described in paragraph (b), to prohibit expulsion. Many commenters appreciated our focus on positive interventions instead of punishment, indicated that they already prohibit expulsion in their programs, or wanted clarification that expulsion would not be permitted under any circumstances. Some commenters suggested that Head Start programs do not suspend or expel children often enough to warrant federal requirements, and questioned why such requirements were necessary.

Some commenters were concerned about an outright prohibition on expulsion in paragraph (b). Commenters were worried it limited their options and raised concerns about how to effectively and safely implement this in their programs. Commenters raised a number of different issues, including parents refusing mental health consultation or disagreeing that their child needs additional services; danger to other children and staff; liabilities to programs; programs not having the specialized staff or access to appropriate services; and potential conflicts with state licensing. Some commenters suggested that expulsion should be allowed as a last resort for programs, that in some instances the threat of expulsion prevents parents from being disruptive to programs, and suggested that keeping children in the program may not be in their best interest. Finally, some commenters requested additional guidance on how to effectively and appropriately implement these requirements, some expressing concern about losing funding if programs are “forced” to suspend a child.

Commenters also offered recommendations they felt made the requirement stronger, including requiring programs to provide staff with access to in-service training to prevent child suspension and expulsion, implementing specific strategies to address challenging behaviors such as trauma assessments, and providing extra funding to hire additional trained staff. Some commenters suggested we add a requirement for parents to consent to mental health consultation to address their concern.

Response:

We do not think young children should be expelled from Head Start because of their behavior. Though we do not believe it to be a widespread problem in Head Start, recent research finds that preschool children are being expelled at alarming rates nationwide.

49

Stark racial and gender disparities exist in these practices. Young boys of color are suspended and expelled at much higher rates than other children in early learning programs and African American girls are suspended at much higher rates than other girls.

50

Suspension and expulsion in the preschool early years is related to less educational achievement later and negative long-term outcomes.

51 52

For these reasons, HHS has recommended this problem receive immediate attention from the early childhood and education fields.

53

It is Head Start's mission to provide high-quality early education to vulnerable children and therefore, it is especially critical that Head Start ensure children with challenging behaviors are supported, rather than expelled.

49

Gilliam, W.S., & Shahar, G. (2006) Preschool and Child Care Expulsion and Suspension: Rates and Predictors in One State.

Infants and Young Children, 19

(3), 228-245.

50

U.S. Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection (2016). Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf,

51

Lamont, J.H., Devore, C.D., Allison, M., Ancona, R., Barnett, S.E., Gunther, R., & Young, T. (2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion.

Pediatrics, 131

(3), e1000-e1007.

52

American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task Force Report (2008). An evidentiary review and recommendations.

53

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/expulsion_suspension_final.pdf.

We understand commenters' concerns but believe we struck the appropriate balance. Children and staff will be best supported by our firm stance against expulsion; our requirements for best practice for prevention and intervention for children's mental health and social and emotional well-being in § 1302.45; requirements in paragraph (a)(2) that permit a program to temporarily suspend a child if there is a serious safety threat that cannot be addressed through the provision of reasonable modifications; and our requirements in paragraph (b)(2) for supportive best practices when a child exhibits persistent and serious challenging behaviors. As a last resort, as described in paragraph (b)(3), a program may transition a child directly to a more appropriate placement if it has explored and documented all possible steps and collaborated with all parties involved in the child's care. Programs should provide children with the accommodations they need based on screenings and evaluations while they are awaiting a more appropriate placement.

We believe it is critical to support parents from the time their children enroll in Head Start and to partner with them to address challenging behaviors. We understand that some parents may be reluctant to engage in mental health consultations. Programs must work to support a program-wide culture that promotes child mental health and social and emotional well-being as described in § 1302.45 and as part of that process, take steps to normalize the mental health consultation process. We revised § 1302.45(a)(3) to require programs obtain parental consent for mental health consultation services when they enroll children in the program. This should facilitate mental health consultation and help remove stigma around behavioral supports.

Finally, we agree it is important for programs to have the tools necessary to address behavioral problems in children without the use of suspension and expulsion. Programs are required under § 1302.92(c)(4) to implement a system of professional development that supports teachers' ability to address challenging behaviors. Finally, Head Start has a long-standing history of preventing suspension and expulsion practices, and as such, programs should be able to budget accordingly.

Comment:

Some commenters suggested revisions to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) that detailed specific steps programs must take to support a child when they exhibit persistent and serious challenging behaviors. For example, commenters stated it was unrealistic to require programs consult with a child's physician since programs cannot compel physicians to participate in a consultation process. Some commenters also stated the phrase “exhaustive steps” was too subjective and requested clarification.

Response:

We agree and made revisions accordingly. We revised both paragraphs to require consultation with a child's teacher instead of their

physician, and revised paragraph (b)(2) to include consideration of the appropriateness of providing needed services and supports under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. We also revised both paragraphs to replace “exhaustive steps” with “explore all possible steps and document all steps taken.” We think this reflects best practice, clarifies our intent, and gives programs appropriate flexibility to implement best practices that are most appropriate for a particular child.

Comment:

Many commenters stated we needed to revise our expulsion requirements to allow programs to transfer children with behavioral problems to the home-based option. Some commenters stated a classroom setting was not developmentally appropriate for some children.

Response:

We believe programs must make significant efforts to support the full integration of all children into every program option. Effective implementation of the requirements to support children's mental health and social and emotional well-being, described in § 1302.45 will support positive learning environments, integrate preventive efforts to address problem behaviors, and engage mental health consultants to support families and staff when challenging behaviors arise. These types of comprehensive services are foundational to Head Start. If a child exhibits problem behaviors in the classroom, the child may be eligible for appropriate special education and related services, to be included in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed in accordance with section 614(d) of the IDEA or an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) developed in accordance with section 635 of the IDEA, or it may be appropriate to provide the child needed supports under Section 504 if the child satisfies the definition of disability in section 705(9)(b) of the Rehabilitation Act. We think moving a child to a home-based option without first exploring all the possible steps described in paragraph (b)(2) is a form of expulsion. If a child is exhibiting persistent and serious challenging behaviors in the classroom setting, programs must implement the process described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to facilitate the child's safe participation in the program. Only as a last resort, and after exploring all possible steps and documenting all steps taken, programs may determine if a child needs an alternate placement such as on-going participation in a home-based program model.

Comment:

Some commenters recommended we explicitly prohibit suspension or expulsion of children for poor attendance or because they are picked up late from the program.

Response:

We agree children should not be suspended or expelled for poor attendance or parental tardiness. In § 1302.16(a)(1) and (2), we already describe steps programs must take if a child is unexpectedly absent, has multiple consecutive unexpected absences, or is frequently absent.

Comment:

Many commenters stated our requirement in paragraph (c) that states parent participation is voluntary and not required as a condition of a child's enrollment was too vague.

Response:

This requirement was also in the previous Head Start Program Performance Standards. We moved this provision to § 1302.15(f) to improve clarity.

Section 1302.18 Fees

This section describes our policy on fees. We maintain the overarching policy that programs are prohibited from charging parents of eligible children a fee for their child's participation in a Head Start program. We made revisions to improve clarity.

Comment:

Some commenters requested clarification of the requirement in paragraph (b)(1). For example, some commenters requested clarity on how long the program day could be, and how long the additional funded hours could be. Additionally, some commenters expressed concern about whether they would be able to assess fees for the pre-k funded portion of the day.

Response:

Hours per day, and thereby additional funded hours, depend on the length of the day the program is operating Head Start. Programs may assess fees only for additional hours beyond the Head Start day. The ability to assess fees for hours beyond the Head Start day is subject to state and local requirements. We revised this provision to improve clarity.

Comment:

Commenters requested clarity about the impact that paragraph (b)(2) would have on cost allocation. Specifically, some commenters expressed concern that programs should not be able to “double dip” in funding, stating that we would need to ensure additional funds go to additional services. Other commenters asked whether collected fees would supplant current funding. Some commenters requested clarity about whether private pay children would be considered Head Start children or would be counted as part of enrollment.

Response:

All grantees receiving Head Start funds are required to comply with the provisions of 45 CFR part 75, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. Part 75 includes regulations requiring that all costs be allocated among multiple funding sources in accordance with relative benefits received. These regulations assure that programs cannot “double dip” or charge the same expense to more than one funding source. Head Start is designed to increase the number of low-income children receiving high-quality, comprehensive early education services that help facilitate healthy development, including physical and social and emotional development, and prepare them for school success. To meet this goal, it is critical that Head Start funds do not supplant existing services. Existing laws and regulations addressing cost allocation and non-supplantation are not re-stated in the proposed regulation. However, to improve clarity, we revised paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to better articulate when fees may be charged to enrolled and non-enrolled families.

Comment:

Some commenters supported the standard in paragraph (b)(2) to encourage mixed income settings and the ability of Head Start programs to charge a fee to private pay or otherwise funded children. Other commenters expressed concern about these provisions or explicitly opposed the requirement in paragraph (b)(2) that allowed programs to charge fees to children who are not Head Start eligible to encourage mixed-income settings. For example, some commenters were concerned this would put Head Start in competition with other private pay providers in the community or were concerned about unintended consequences for eligible children in terms of access.

Response:

Research on peer influences suggests that low-income children achieve better learning outcomes in mixed-income settings.

54 55

We do not believe that allowing Head Start programs to operate mixed-income classes will have a negative impact on other private pay providers in a community. This requirement does not allow programs to serve fewer eligible children than their Head Start funded enrollment. However, to further clarify our intent mixed-income settings must in no way displace Head Start eligible children, we revised §§ 1302.11(b)(3),

1302.15(d), and paragraph (b)(2) in this section.

54

Mashburn, A.J., Justice, L.M., Downer, J.T., & Pianta, R.C. (2009). Peer effects on children's language achievement during pre‐kindergarten.

Child Development, 80(3),

686-702.

55

Henry, G.T., & Rickman, D.K. (2007). Do peers influence children's skill development in preschool?

Economics of Education Review, 26(1),

100-112.

Comment:

Some commenters asked for clarification or suggested revisions for additional specificity in paragraph (b)(2). For example, commenters requested clarity about the definition of “diverse economic backgrounds” and whether over-income tuition could be applied to non-federal match requirements. Some commenters asked for clarity about whether paragraph (b)(2) allows programs to charge fees to Head Start eligible children during the non-Head Start portion of the day. Additionally, commenters requested clarity about whether Head Start children can be expelled if their parents do not pay the fees for non-Head Start hours. Some commenters suggested that expulsion should be possible, because otherwise it would be impossible to hold parents accountable for paying fees. Other commenters suggested that we ensure Head Start children cannot be turned away if the portion of day funded by child subsidies requires fee and the parents cannot pay.

Response:

We believe that it is important for programs to have local flexibility to define what economic diversity means in their own communities so did not include a definition. Any non-federal match must support services to Head Start eligible children during the Head Start day. Programs can charge fees to Head Start eligible children during the non-Head Start portion of the day. However, programs cannot predicate a child's participation in the Head Start portion of the day on enrollment in the non-Head Start portion of the day or payment of any fees.

Comment:

Some commenters requested clarification about the proposed regulations covering fees for services under Part C of IDEA in paragraph (b)(3). Commenters noted the provision referenced Part B of IDEA, not Part C.

Response:

We agree with commenters that the reference to IDEA in paragraph (b)(3) was incorrect and unnecessary. We removed this requirement.

Comment:

Commenters noted that both standard fees and “de facto fees” should be prohibited, including requiring parents to provide diapers, formula, or food and asked whether fees for special events like field trips were included.

Response:

We have codified the requirement to provide diapers and formula in Head Start programs in § 1302.42(e)(1) of the standards and clarified here that fees are not allowed for activities, such as field trips, that are part of the Head Start day.

Program Structure; Subpart B

In this subpart, we combined all previous performance standards related to program options into one coherent section and indicated different requirements for Head Start and Early Head Start when necessary. We set standards for how programs should choose a program option; defined the requirements for ratios, group size, and service duration for each of the program options; and outlined the waiver requirements to operate locally designed program options. The majority of the comments submitted on the NPRM provided input on this subpart. In particular, most commenters raised concerns with the proposal to increase the service duration for Head Start children to a full school day and full school year. We discuss the comments and our rationale for any changes other than technical changes to the regulatory text below.

Section 1302.20 Determining Program Structure

This section describes how programs must select a program option and develop a program calendar. The provisions in this section also require that all program options provide comprehensive services, outline the process for conversion of Head Start slots to Early Head Start slots, allow American Indian and Alaska Native programs to reallocate funding, and clarify what are considered Head Start and Early Head Start hours of service.

Comment:

Commenters expressed some concerns about the proposed provision in paragraph (a)(1) that programs annually consider whether local needs would be better met through conversion of existing part-day to full-day slots or full-day to full working day slots. Some stated that annual consideration was too often and too burdensome and suggested less frequent alternatives. In addition, the proposals in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) created some confusion. Some commenters opposed the provision that programs consider conversion to a full year program and others found the language unclear in regards to whether this conversion was mandatory and whether full year meant calendar or academic year. Commenters requested clarification on the proposal in paragraph (a)(3) that requires programs to try to identify alternate funding sources before using program resources to cover extended hours because they found the term “extended hours” confusing and were unsure how meeting this requirement would be evaluated.

Response:

We revised paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and struck paragraph (a)(3) from the NPRM to improve clarity of what is required of programs. The requirement for programs to annually consider whether they should convert to a full year program was not meant to require actual conversion but rather for programs to annually consider whether such a conversion would better meet the needs of their community. Paragraph (a)(2) now makes clear that consideration of conversion and ways to promote continuity of care should take place as part of the annual review of the community assessment described in § 1302.11(b)(2). In addition, we replaced the term “extended hours” in what was paragraph (a)(3) in the NPRM with “full working day services” for improved clarity in paragraph (a)(2) in the final rule. We believe annual reconsideration of whether a program's model is meeting local needs is appropriate.

Comment:

We received comments on provisions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) of the NPRM regarding conversion to Early Head Start. Some commenters strongly supported these provisions. Some stated that annual consideration was too often and too burdensome and suggested less frequent alternatives. Some commenters requested that additional clarification be added to the regulation, such as noting that conversion was allowable for grantees who did not currently operate Early Head Start and that regional offices should approve or deny conversion requests within a stated timeline. Other commenters suggested the standards should explicitly allow a reduction in funded enrollment for programs that choose to convert Head Start slots to Early Head Start slots.

Response:

No changes were made to the provisions regarding conversion of slots to Early Head Start, which we believe are appropriately addressed in paragraph (c), with the exception of a technical correction that the policy council would also need to approve the request and a clarification that programs should update their school readiness goals to reflect the ages of children they serve. There are no statutory or regulatory prohibitions to prevent grantees that do not currently operate Early Head Start from converting slots. We agree that a reduction in funded enrollment is a likely outcome of conversion because of the higher relative costs of serving infants and toddlers, but this does not need to be included in the regulation. We understand there is concern about the time required to process conversion requests but note that the process follows the clear requirements set forth

in statute and further clarified in this rule.

Comment:

Some commenters asked for clarification about whether a blended or braided funding model would be allowed to achieve the full school day requirement. Some sought additional clarification about which Head Start standards would need to be met during hours of operation not funded by Head Start. Some commenters also sought additional clarification about which hours must meet Head Start standards and noted that they would not be able to meet Head Start standards for before and after care. Similarly, commenters asked for clarification about whether the ratio and group size requirements only referred to program hours funded by Early Head Start or Head Start.

Response:

The NPRM intended to convey that hours of service that meet Head Start standards would be counted toward calculation of Head Start service duration, regardless of whether those hours were funded by federal Head Start funding or another source. We understand the need for innovative funding models to leverage funds to more efficiently meet the needs of children and families. To eliminate confusion about whether these funding models are an allowable approach to meet the service duration minimum requirements, we added paragraph (d) to clearly state that programs may consider hours of service that meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards, regardless of the source of funding, as hours of planned class operations. We encourage programs to continue to seek innovative ways to fund their program models while meeting high-quality standards throughout the day. However, we acknowledge that ratio requirements, as well as all Head Start program performance standards, apply only during the hours of planned class operations for Head Start and Early Head Start.

Section 1302.21 Center-Based Option

This section defines the setting for the center-based program option and sets requirements for ratios, group size, service duration, calendar planning, licensing, and square footage. Most comments addressed the service duration proposal for Head Start center-based programs.

Comment:

The NPRM proposed to increase the minimum hours and days of program operation for Head Start preschoolers in the center-based option. The majority of comments addressed this proposal. The NPRM also proposed making the double session model only available as a locally designed program option, instead of as a standard program model. Some commenters supported the proposed increase in the hours per day and days per year, regardless of available funding. Some specifically supported the move to full school day (minimum of 6 hours per day) or full school year (minimum of 180 days per year), and still others supported both provisions as the standard option for Head Start. Reasons for their support included: Significant increases in school readiness; the strong research base; alignment with state pre-K and K-12 systems; increases in the employment rates of low-income parents; child needs for more time to reach learning goals; doubling the amount of time Head Start children would be exposed to high-quality instruction and services; and better meeting parent needs. Others recommended we re-calculate the cost per child needed for each grantee to move to the proposed standard dosage for center-based services.

Some commenters supported the proposal to increase program duration for Head Start preschoolers, but only if funding is available to support the changes. These commenters noted the research base and potential improvement for children's outcomes, but stated that they would not support the policy without adequate funding because it would deprive many children of early learning opportunities due to a decrease in available Head Start slots. Some commenters generally agreed we should increase program duration for Head Start preschoolers, but they also raised concerns. We discuss those concerns in more detail below.

Some commenters suggested alternative minimums to the 180 days per year and 6 hours per day proposed in the NPRM. Some suggested that the requirements for the length of day and year be shorter than those proposed in the NPRM, but longer than previous standards. Commenters suggested taking an annual hours approach to program duration, such as 1,020 or 1,080 hours per year for Head Start preschoolers, to allow programs greater flexibility to design what works best for their community. Other commenters suggested requiring a specific percent of slots for each grantee, such as 50 or 75 percent, meet an increased duration requirement and allowing the remaining slots to be more flexible. Other commenters suggested that the minimum duration requirements should vary based on child age. Some suggested that the increase in duration should be encouraged, or optional, but not required. Some commenters asked if programs currently operating at a lower dosage would be “grandfathered in” and allowed to continue operating under the old program performance standards. Others suggested that the required hours per day should be less than what would trigger a nap requirement under local licensing rules. Some commenters recommended allowing programs to offer a “menu” of varied program models based on community assessments with an ability to shift slots between models over the course of the grant to meet changing needs. Some other commenters suggested that the increased duration requirements for Head Start (180 days) should align with the requirements for Early Head Start (230 days). Some commenters asked why duration requirements are not higher than those proposed in the NPRM, given the research on summer learning loss and evidence that children benefit from longer duration, and the need for a longer day to accommodate working families.

Many commenters raised concerns about the impact of these changes on partnerships and collaborations with public schools. Commenters proposed alternative minimums or suggested that programs be allowed to align their calendar with the local school district or state requirements for K-12, to facilitate partnerships with schools. Some noted that their school district or state tracks time in hours per year and suggested that this same flexibility be applied to Head Start. Commenters also raised concerns about the challenges of operating longer than their local schools. Specific concerns included disruptions to transportation, facility space, and food service; the ways service days are calculated; and union agreements. Some commenters stated that double sessions are sometimes the best option when working with school districts due to space limitations and transportation. Others stated that attendance is low when Head Start is in session but the school district is not.

The majority of commenters either opposed or expressed significant concerns with the provisions to increase the program day and year for Head Start preschoolers, with many citing multiple reasons for their concerns or opposition. Some of these commenters were generally against the proposal to increase program duration, without going into specific reasons for their opposition. Many commenters were concerned or opposed due to the loss of Head Start slots that would occur without appropriate funding. In this context, some were specifically concerned with the elimination of double sessions and only being able to serve half the number of children in their community. Some commenters

agreed that children would benefit from the increased exposure to Head Start, but they felt that this benefit was not worth other children and families no longer receiving Head Start services. Some suggested that the reduction in the number of slots could cause additional instability in already fragile communities and that there are no other high-quality early childhood education options available in some communities. Some commenters suggested delaying implementation of the new requirements until sufficient funding is in place to prevent enrollment reduction. Others expressed that any additional money should be used to increase access to Head Start, as opposed to program duration.

Some commenters stated that the increased duration was not developmentally appropriate for preschoolers. Some noted that transportation in rural areas would make the day even longer for children. Some suggested that a 6-hour day may not be appropriate for certain groups of children, such as 3-year-olds, children with challenging behaviors or special needs, or DLLs. Some commenters asserted that a longer year is not appropriate for preschoolers. Others specifically stated that moving to a program that operates five days per week (as opposed to 4 days) is not appropriate for children this age.

Many commenters expressed concern or opposition to the proposed operation minimums for preschoolers because they would limit the ability of programs to address the unique needs of the local communities and families they serve and/or because the proposed requirements do not take into account parental choice or preferences. Commenters stated the proposed requirements would prevent creative and innovative program designs that would be more responsive to community needs. Some commenters said that it does not support the cultural values of all families, such as American Indian and Alaska Native or immigrant families.

Some commenters opposed or expressed concerns about the proposed increase in service duration for Head Start because of the logistical challenges programs would face, including significant disruptions to community collaborations. Some commenters stated that collaborations they use for transportation would be severely disrupted. Others noted they would lose access to facilities because their community partnership would not be able to provide full-day space. Many of these commenters raised concerns about the lack of adequate or reasonably priced facilities in their area. Some commenters were concerned with the challenges they would face finding enough high-quality teachers for new classes. Some commenters raised concerns about negative impacts on partnerships with child care providers and family eligibility for child care subsidies to provide families with care for a full working day. Some commenters noted that children who currently receive full day services through the combination of a half-day of Head Start and half-day of state pre-k could be negatively impacted by the duration proposal.

Some commenters opposed or expressed concerns about the proposed increase in duration for Head Start preschoolers because of the potential impact on teachers and other staff. Some commenters were concerned about the loss of staff jobs that would result without adequate funding to support the increased duration, noting this would have a negative impact on the economy and local community. Commenters were concerned about how the move to a longer school day or longer school year would increase the burden on teachers and reduce time for other necessary activities, which would undermine program quality. Some suggested that this would increase teacher stress, burnout, and turnover. These issues were of particular concern to some programs that believed they would have to move from a 4-day per week to a 5-day per week schedule. Commenters were also concerned that the proposed model would make it more difficult to recruit and retain highly qualified staff. Commenters noted the need to pay teachers more in order to offset the workload associated with the increased program duration. Some commenters were concerned about the loss of staff jobs that would result without adequate funding to support the increased duration and stated this would have a negative impact on the economy and local community.

Some commenters stated that the research cited in the NPRM was not adequate or appropriate to justify the longer day and/or year for Head Start preschoolers. Some commenters stated that longer duration is not necessarily an indicator of higher program quality. Some commenters stated that moving to full school day services would not increase instructional time because of time that would need to be devoted to naps, meals, and transitions. Some commenters expressed concern with increasing duration for Head Start preschoolers because their state or municipality still has part-day, part-week, or optional kindergarten, or part-day state-funded preschool. Some commenters expressed concern about state licensing laws that would become applicable with a longer program day. Some commenters raised concerns about the impact on their non-federal share match if they served fewer families.

Response:

We made significant changes in paragraph (c) to the requirements for service duration for preschoolers in Head Start center-based settings. We believe, and research indicates, that strong child outcomes are best fostered through high-quality early education programs that provide at least a full school day and full school year of services and that children are best served if Head Start programs continue to move toward this goal. We do not agree that the increased service duration is developmentally inappropriate for preschoolers, including three-year-olds, or that the research we cited is inadequate to justify these proposals. While the research does not identify a specific threshold, there is ample research that points to increased duration in achieving positive child outcomes.

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Many Head Start programs, as well as State funded preschool programs already operate for a full school day and a full school year.

56

Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Ready, D.D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S.J. (2006). Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten: In Which Program Do Children Learn More?

American Journal of Education, 112(2),

163-208.

57

Walston, J.T., and West, J. (2004).

Full-day and Half-day Kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (NCES 2004-078).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

58

Sloan McCombs, J. et al., (2011). Making Summer Count. How Summer Programs Can Boost Children's Learning. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.

59

Downey, D.B., von Hippel, P.T. & Broh, B.A. (2004). Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer Months and the School Year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 613-635.

60

Ehrlich, S.B., Gwynne, J.A., Sorice, E. (2014).

Preschool Attendance in Chicago Public Schools: Relationships with Learning Outcomes and Reasons for Absences.

University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Research Report.

61

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Schaaf, J.M., LaForett, D.R., Hildebrandt, L.M., & Sideris, J. (2014).

Effects of Georgia's Pre-K Program on children's school readiness skills: Findings from the 2012-2013 evaluation study.

Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

62

Barnett, W.S., J

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.