Adams: The concern is understandable, but the 5 percent cap applies only to costs categorized as administrative and is in line with similar grants. Teacher salaries, classroom expenses, family services, and other costs that directly support services are not administrative. We’re also removing many of the federal requirements that generate administrative work in the first place. And because programs have different cost structures, the proposal includes a waiver process for those that anticipate undue implementation challenges, subject to HHS review.
Hess: You’ve proposed to require that classroom instruction be conducted in English. Critics argue that this doesn’t make sense, given that perhaps one third of participating children are dual-language learners. What’s your take?
Adams: Head Start is a school-readiness program. The goal is to help children enter kindergarten able to participate fully in English-language classrooms and the broader community. The proposal allows programs to request waivers from this requirement and Tribal Head Start programs are exempt when a tribal language is used to further tribal heritage. This is the kind of provision where public comment matters. We want to hear from programs and families about how to achieve strong English acquisition while serving children well.
Hess: Of the changes you’ve proposed, which ones address previous Obama- or Biden-era regulations—and which modify the 2007 law as written by Congress?
Adams: There are really two categories here. First, some of the regulatory provisions we’re taking on were added or expanded in 2016 and 2024. Our proposal gives programs flexibility to keep adhering to those provisions if they so choose, or try approaches better suited to local conditions. Second, some provisions introduced by previous administrations simply duplicated obligations already written into the Head Start Act or other federal law. Removing duplicative language doesn’t remove the underlying obligation. We are not changing the 2007 Head Start law—only Congress can do that.
Hess: Why do you think there’s been so much pushback against the proposed changes?
Adams: I understand why people care so intensely. Head Start has a proud history, dedicated employees, and parents who have built their lives around it. Any change to its rulebook is bound to raise questions. But some concerns falsely equate federal regulation with program quality. I’ve visited programs nationwide and met extraordinarily capable local leaders. Our approach starts from trusting them rather than assuming Washington knows best. It’s also worth remembering that this is a proposed rule. We released it for comment precisely because we want providers, parents, and experts to tell us where we got it right and where they think changes are needed.
Hess: OK, so what’s the biggest thing that you think critics are getting wrong?
Adams: The biggest misconception is that flexibility is a mandate. If a local program likes its current operating model, this rule doesn’t require it to change. Some criticism also implicitly assumes that local Head Start directors, teachers, parents, and state regulators can’t be trusted to make responsible decisions without Washington prescribing every detail. These are some of the most capable and mission-driven people I’ve worked with. Our job is to hold programs accountable for results while giving them room to solve problems in ways that fit their communities.
Hess: Over the past two years, various Trump officials and allies have talked about eliminating Head Start. Should observers view this as a half-step in that direction?
Adams: No. This is an effort to make Head Start more sustainable and accessible. As stated earlier, the proposed reforms are estimated to allow us to reach hundreds of thousands of more children over the next five years. I have said publicly that I believe in this program. The question is whether we want a Head Start system that becomes progressively more expensive and harder to access or one that trusts parents and local communities, focuses federal oversight on the essentials, and serves more children. We are choosing the latter.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
