Good morning. We’re here today to consider one of the most important bills we’ll take up in the 108^th Congress. The School Readiness Act, authored by our colleague Mike Castle from Delaware, will renew and reauthorize the federal Head Start early childhood program for the next five years. It will strengthen the academic components of Head Start while preserving the comprehensive services such as health and nutrition that the program already provides to children who need help the most.

I want to commend Mr. Castle and all the members of the Education Reform Subcommittee for their work to date on this legislation. The bill before us today is the product of many months of bipartisan work, and includes many key provisions that were hammered out in a bipartisan fashion by Democrat and Republican members and staff. While we haven’t been able to reach agreement on all issues, both sides have dealt openly with each other. Ideas have been shared freely and regularly, and each side has known clearly where the other stands. I appreciate the fact that you’ve taken this approach to a very tough and important issue.

This reauthorization effort is important because disadvantaged children across our country still are not getting the best start possible. There is still a “readiness gap” between Head Start children and their more affluent peers when they reach kindergarten. As education experts and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services have noted, Head Start children show some progress in cognitive skills and social and emotional development. But they continue to perform significantly below their more advantaged peers once they enter school in areas essential to school readiness, such as reading and mathematics.

One of the contributing factors to this readiness gap is the fragmented delivery system for early childhood education that continues to exist from state to state. As the Department of Health & Human Services notes, “Historically, the system of early care and education in the United States has been fragmented. Child-care programs and early education programs have existed separately and have separate goals. This incoherent approach to service delivery has created challenges for states trying to build comprehensive early childhood systems for young children that include a challenging educational focus. Greater collaboration and coordination is needed among state and federal programs serving children ages 0-5 to ensure that all children entering kindergarten are ready to learn.”

Partly as a consequence of Washington’s unwillingness to work with states to fix this fragmented delivery system, millions of Head Start children have entered kindergarten ahead of where they would have been without Head Start, but still lagging significantly behind their peers.

President Bush has proposed that we begin to address this problem for disadvantaged children, instead of shuffling it under the rug as Washington has been doing for years. His plan to strengthen Head Start includes an option, sought for years by governors Republican and Democrat alike, that would allow a limited number of states to coordinate Head Start with their own early education programs in exchange for a commitment to high standards and generous funding.

There are some who falsely and inaccurately describe this state option as a “block grant” -- which, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "an unrestricted federal grant.” With all due respect – if you’re using the term “block grant,” you haven’t read this bill. There are no fewer than 15 different major requirements that spell out major restrictions for every participating state. Most states couldn’t even hope to meet these standards. As a conservative Republican who has supported many a different block grant proposal over the years, let me be the first to assure you: this is no block grant.

Some contend the bill would allow states to use federal Head Start funds to supplant state early education funds. They can’t. It’s explicitly prohibited in the bill. If a state can’t meet that test, it doesn’t qualify.

Some contend the bill would “turn Head Start over to cash-strapped states.” It wouldn’t. For every dollar in Head Start funding a demonstration state receives, it would be required to match it with 50 cents of its own money. If a state can’t meet that test, it doesn’t qualify.

Some contend the bill would not require states to uphold Head Start standards, resulting in poorer quality for children. Wrong again. The School Readiness Act requires that any state participating in the state demonstration project generally meet or exceed federal Head Start standards with regards to both education and comprehensive services such as nutrition and health. If a state can’t meet that test, it doesn’t qualify.

Most troubling, though, has been the claim that the President’s proposed changes address what one organization called a “nonexistent problem."

Unfortunately, the readiness gap between Head Start children and their peers is very real – and the fact that some no longer believe it’s a problem is troubling. It’s what the President calls the soft bigotry of low expectations. That’s a polite way of saying you believe some children are less capable of learning, simply because of the color of their skin or the neighborhood they live in. That soft bigotry manifests itself in a mistaken belief that the status quo in Head Start is the best we can do.

This attitude permitted us to tolerate the existence of an achievement gap in elementary and secondary education for 35 years. It took 35 years for policymakers to admit there was a problem.

The children in Head Start don’t have 35 years. For them, and the millions of children who will pass through the Head Start program in the next few years, the readiness gap is an issue we must begin to confront now.

Chairman Castle and others have worked hard to listen to the concerns of local Head Start teachers and parents in this bill, which has been modified in major ways to address many of those concerns. I want to assure you that I’m committed to keeping that dialogue going as this bill proceeds to the House floor.

The children in Head Start deserve the very best this nation can give them. Nothing less. These children are learning, but they are not learning as much as they deserve to be learning. We, as a nation, are letting them down. We can start to change that by beginning to give states the tools to fix the fragmented delivery system in early childhood education. If states are willing to commit to high standards and funding for early childhood education, then the federal government should be willing to let them coordinate Head Start with their own programs. Until it is, we are doing something less than giving disadvantaged children the best start they deserve.

# # # # #