SPECIAL REPORT
for preschoolers as well as training for transportation staff on proper securement practices. However, license-exempt programs nationwide would
still need to meet basic Child Care and Development Fund requirements for health and safety. HHS would retain monitoring and enforcement authority. Over 40,000 public comments were posted to the on-
line docket. The comment period closed Oct. 6. Titled “Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Pro-
grams,” the NPRM “proposes to rescind and replace the Head Start Program Performance Standards last revised in 2024.” ACF said the proposal would significantly reduce federal bureaucratic burden on programs; defer to state policies wherever possible; return substantial local control to Head Start agencies delivering the services and to par- ents as the primary caregivers and decision-makers for their children; reduce unnecessary duplication of Head Start regulations with Federal statute and other regula- tions; and emphasize the critical role of health, nutrition, and physical exercise for young children. The National Head Start Association has called the
proposal the most significant revision of the program’s governing regulations in its 61-year history. The organi- zation said it would evaluate the changes based on their effect on access, quality, local flexibility and outcomes for children. “Fewer rules cannot mean fewer results,” said NHSA
Executive Director Yasmina Vinci. “Head Start makes a promise to a family that their child will be safe, healthy and ready for school.” NHSA also emphasized that the NPRM is not final and
does not change current program operations while the federal rulemaking process continues. “If this proposal meets that test, we will say so and help make it work,” Vinci said. “If it does not, we will say that just as clearly—in the public record, on Capitol Hill, and in every forum available to us. We are not going to pretend either way.” A panel of early learning experts, including three for- mer Office of Head Start directors, spoke during a Sept. 8 webinar sponsored by the Campaign for Grade Level Reading. They examined what’s in the proposed rule, what isn’t, what opportunities it represents, and what risks it poses to children, families and communities. “For many Head Start families, transportation is ac-
cess,” said Bernadine Futrell, who served as director of the Office of Head Start during the Biden administration. “Head Start serves rural, farming and Tribal communi- ties, where children may travel long distances and there is no public transit. I know this personally. “I am concerned that removing federal protections, including the bus monitor requirement, could affect safety and create uncertainty about reimbursement,” Futrell con- tinued. “Flexibility is important, but every child deserves a basic level of safety, regardless of where they live.”
20 School Transportation News • NOVEMBER 2026
Potential Impact Prevent Child Abuse Arizona works to improve how
Arizona meets the needs of children and families early, before a crisis occurs. “When we look at the broader ecosystem of support
that families rely on, transportation is a significant barrier,” Molly Peterson, an impact strategist for the organization based in Flagstaff, Arizona, told School Transportation News. “That is especially true in ru- ral communities, where services are geographically dispersed and interconnected public transportation systems often do not exist. “In this case, access to reliable transportation may
determine whether a child can participate in Head Start at all,” she continued. “Transportation must is essential infrastructure, and we must treat it as such. If we do not, the consequences will fall most heavily on children and families with the fewest alternatives.” Transportation decisions should therefore be evalu-
ated not only in terms of routes and costs but in terms of their effect on children’s opportunities to learn and thrive, opportunities that deliver well-studied returns on investment. “The intent of the transportation changes may be to
create closer alignment with local education systems. However, we know that school districts, at least in northern Arizona, are already facing bus driver shortages,” she said. It is concerning to place additional responsibility on systems that may not have the staffing, funding, or ca- pacity to absorb it, Peterson added. “This transportation rule could create greater align-
ment among systems, streamline funding and improve efficiency, but only if the systems involved work coop- eratively and collaboratively, with children’s access and best interests guiding every decision.” School districts should begin conversations with Head
Start providers and families now, Peterson advised. “They should use what they learn to assess existing transportation capacity, identify unmet needs and in- form their feedback during the public comment period. This is an important opportunity to help shape how any proposed rules ultimately take effect,” Peterson said. “There are several areas of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that are so gravely concerning that many advocates are rallying around those areas, such as ratios and discipline,” Peterson added. “This transportation change could be good in theory. The question is wheth- er it can be effective in practice, too.”
Programs Weigh Flexibility Against Safety Bonnie Eggenburg, vice president of Gateway Early
Head Start and Head Start Program in Bridgeton, New Jersey, said she supports giving local communities flex- ibility to more efficiently coordinate transportation. But priority must remain on the safety of children.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
