Skip to main content

Parents Push Back Against the Trump Administration's Latest Attack on Working Families


The Trump administration has followed through on its promise to gut the Head Start program. Since , it has slashed 60 percent of the Office of Head Start staff, closed half of the regional offices where staff with local knowledge worked, delayed funding necessary for payroll and rent, and undermined the program’s mission through its ban on anything it views as promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and/or accessibility, or “DEIA.”

Launched in 1965, Head Start was an outgrowth of the Civil Rights Movement and its promise of racial and economic justice, particularly for Black women and children in the United States. For 60 years, Head Start has transformed the lives of more than 40 million families by preparing children for school, supporting parents -- particularly mothers -- with access to childcare, and strengthening health, education, and economic outcomes for children under five.

The Trump administration's efforts to shutter Head Start have forcibly closed some programs temporarily and have made it virtually impossible for programs to meet the needs of the children and families that rely on them. The result is chaos, confusion, and uncertainty for working families seeking childcare. This is but one of the administration’s latest attacks on children, women, and especially Black women and other women of color. Like the attacks on other safety net programs, like food stamps and Medicaid, attacks on Head Start seek to deprive women of the means to be financially independent. Without Head Start, many women would not be able to work or go to school.

The ACLU Women’s Rights Project, the ACLU of Washington, the ACLU of Illinois, the Impact Fund, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Parent Voices Oakland and Family Forward Oregon, and the Head Start Association of Washington state, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The lawsuit asks the court to order the administration to stop the gutting of Head Start and to block the enforcement of its unconstitutional ban on programs that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Parents on the frontlines of the fight to protect Head Start have shared how they have already been affected by office closures, staff layoffs, and other attempts to undermine Head Start programming.

Desiree Guerra

Desiree Guerra whose dress is blowing in the wind, stands in a field of short brown grass.

Credit: Desiree Guerra

My two-year-old son is enrolled in an Early Head Start program, and my three-year-old daughter is planning to begin Head Start this September. Without Head Start, I would not be able to afford the rising cost of childcare in Oregon.

I have seen firsthand how Head Start has changed my children’s lives. Since joining Head Start, my son has improved his speech and motor skills, become more confident, and developed greater empathy for others. My daughter became more outgoing and confident through her experience with Head Start and had the opportunity to develop socially with other children her own age. Both children are proudly Black, Chilean, and white, and benefit from Head Start’s diverse environment, where they are able to learn about and are taught to celebrate their heritage and identity.

Head Start provides my son with healthy foods that he does not have access to at home due to cost. It also empowers me to be a better mother. I enrolled in Head Start’s parenting classes, which taught me to better understand the needs of my children and helped me to reparent myself. Today, because of Head Start, I can attend college as a full-time student, where I am studying social work. My ultimate goal is to obtain a master’s degree and to open a shelter for domestic violence survivors and their children. As a survivor, I want to help other families like mine and be part of the change I believe in. I can’t stay in college and achieve my dreams without the support the Head Start program provides. In fighting for Head Start, my family is not asking for handouts—we’re asking for a fair shot. It gives kids a chance to succeed and parents the support they need to keep going. These attacks on Head Start send the message that our children’s futures don’t matter, but they do. I won’t stop speaking up until they’re heard.

Osbornique Williams

Osbornique Williams looks intently into the camera as she sits in the driver seat of her car.

Credit: Osbornique Williams

The Head Start teachers have been incredibly helpful in supporting my son learn how to better communicate. They take the time to make him feel heard and understood. With three kids, our household is very busy. Head Start provides a space for my son that is just for him—a setting where he gets to learn, interact, and play with other kids his own age.

My son is Black and multi-racial. His identity is celebrated in Head Start, where the students and staff also share his diverse background. I’m very fearful of my son losing this.

Because we cannot afford to pay for pre-school, without Head Start, my three-year-old son would lose access to Education. Since he is behind his peers in speech and language, losing the support of Head Start could undo the progress he has made and set him back even more.

Access to Head Start means that I am able to go to my doctor’s appointments, go grocery shopping, prepare meals, and otherwise take care of my family. Because of Head Start, I am able to be more focused and present with my other children, including going to my eight-year-old son’s sports practices and games to support and spend time with him. It takes a village to raise children, and Head Start is a part of that village.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...
Post a Comment
Read more

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...
Post a Comment
Read more