Note: To see video of Sen. Durbin reading to Head Start students, click "View Gallery" to the right.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, made the trip to Aurora Wednesday morning to speak out against budget cuts that threaten Head Start programs in Illinois.
Speaking at Two Rivers Head Start Agency, Durbin said the cuts—part of the Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations Bill, passed by the House last month—could potentially leave 218,000 low-income children without early childhood education next year, and cause more than 16,000 Head Start and Early Head Start classrooms to close their doors nationwide.
In Illinois, that would mean roughly 9,000 three-to-five-year-olds would lose access to early childhood classes, offered at affordable rates for families struggling to make ends meet. It would also mean the loss of up to 2,000 jobs. To Durbin, that would be a disastrous choice.
“We have one chance with a child to do it right,” Durbin said. “If we miss that opportunity, their lives change forever. Our lives change forever.”
Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner joined him in speaking out: “If we want to be competitive, (Head Start) is exactly the type of program we should be trying to enhance, not to cut,” he said.
The proposed appropriations bill would cut education programs by nearly $4.9 billion, according to Durbin, and eliminate $1.1 billion from Head Start’s funding for 2011. And local Head Start programs need “every penny” of that money to make their budgets work, said Diane Lacey, executive director of Two Rivers Head Start.
Two Rivers operates agencies as far north as Elgin, and as far south as Morris. The Aurora center serves 225 kids and their families (and Two Rivers facilities serve more than 300 in Aurora), with a further 100 on a waiting list, Lacey said. The Yorkville center serves 51, with five more waiting in line.
And both centers offer half-day and full-day classes, to allow working parents to leave their children in Head Start’s care. Lori Morrison-Frichtl, executive director of the Illinois Head Start Agency, said Head Start programs offer more than education—they involve parents at every level, and provide assistance and counseling for them as well.
“I understand the need to cut unnecessary and wasteful spending,” she said, “but before we cut programs like Head Start, we need to convince Congress that there is nothing more important than our children’s future.”
Fabian Guerrero of Aurora would agree. He has sent his three kids through Two Rivers Head Start. His oldest, Fabian Jr., now 12, experienced Attention Deficit Disorder, he said, but with the help of the teachers at Two Rivers, he’s now one of the top students in his middle school.
His youngest son, Yair, now 7, had difficulty learning at a young age. It was Head Start professionals who discovered the reason why: he had a hearing problem, which was affecting his ability to understand his teachers. A few visits to a specialist, and Yair is now impressing his second-grade teachers, and reading at a fourth-grade level.
And Guerrero’s daughter, Yaretzi, four years old, is a current student at Two Rivers Head Start. The classes have done wonders for his daughter, Guerrero said, and the thought that Head Start could lose its federal funding distresses him.
“If we cut this, and the kids fall behind, what happens to them?” he said. “If we don’t start early, it’s hard for them to get a real education in high school.”
Congressman Randy Hultgren, R-Wheaton, voted for the appropriations bill. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday. The Senate has not yet voted on the bill.
While at Two Rivers Head Start, Durbin stopped in on one of the classrooms and read aloud a book called “Polar Bear, Polar Bear, What Do You Hear,” much to the delight of the 13 students in the class. They clapped, made animal noises when prompted, and laughed and smiled through the entire thing.
“That was a good story, wasn’t it?” Durbin asked when he was finished, and the kids cheered back at him.
"a look inside the stimulus package reveals that “change” mostly means spending vastly more on domestic programs without necessarily improving the way they operate. Nowhere is this clearer than in its provisions concerning education, particularly Head Start" "Head Start and similar prekindergarten programs could truly help disadvantaged children, but many studies have shown that Head Start, as it is now managed, is failing them. In 1998, Congress required the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct the first rigorous national evaluation of the program. The Clinton administration took this mandate seriously and initiated a 383-site randomized experiment involving about 4,600 children. Confirming previous research, the study found that the current program had little meaningful impact.
Researchers aren’t the only ones who see that the program is slumping — so do parents. From 1997 to 2004, even as Congress gave Head Start enough money to increase enrollment by 22 percent, the number of children in the program increased by only 2 percent. So many poor families now use other programs that Head Start has, for all practical purposes, run out of poor 4-year-olds to serve. Rather than try to make the program more attractive to families, Head Start advocates persuaded Congress in late 2007 to raise the income eligibility ceiling, from essentially the poverty line to 130 percent of poverty. Lack of money is not the problem: to keep a child in Head Start full-time, year-round, costs about $22,600, as opposed to an average cost of $9,500 in a day care center. And that’s the big failing of the stimulus bill. In area after area, it does not require any real change in return for vast piles of money"
Surely a liberal like yourself won't discount the good folks at the New York Times. The program isn't working Matt, and it's costing the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars, and all Durbin wants to do is throw more money at it. More money isn't the solution. Why you felt that my previous position was indefensible is beyond reason. I have the facts to back it up, it's the Governments own study.
You must not hold a very high opinion of yourself. First you cut and paste opinions from the Heritage Foundation and now you cut and paste from the New York Times. Are you not able to sit down, read the study yourself, and formulate your own conclusions? Must you constantly regurgitate the opinions of others? Are you not able to hear the stories of people who have posted here about the good that Head Start programs have accomplished? Like I said before, it is very obvious from your postings where you stand politically, and more importantly, where you stand morally. As far as the "liberal" designation, the fact that you think Dwight D. Eisenhower was a liberal has already shown everybody with any grounding in history that you're off the reservation when it comes to the ability to classify people within your self-constructed "left-right paradigm". And for the record, I don't read the New York Times. The New York Times, much like the Heritage Foundation, is a propaganda machine. I don't care much for those who parrot talking points, be those talking points of the "left" or the "right". They tend to mistake "opinion" for "fact", much like you do in your posts about the Head Start programs.
Of course we need to reduce the deficit, but there are smarter ways to do it than shutting down our economy and infrastructure.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/153699-exposing-the-planned-parenthood-business-model
To debate if planned parenthood performs abortions is irrelevant. The bottom line is abortions are not federally funded, and a woman has a right over her reproductive organs. Like it or not, this is part of freedom in America. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. To impose your ideology on another American, to force your will over another American's body, is crossing the line. Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. This isn't Iran.
I would like to see the reference of where your statement of "the percentage of Americans who self identify as pro-life is growing, while the percentage who identify themselves as "pro-choice" is dwindling." I question the accuracy of this statement with deep skepticism.
You should start paying attention to the actual arguments being made. The argument is not whether Planned Parenthood performs abortions. The argument was whether Planned Parenthood should be designated as a "healthcare provider". As far as federal funding of abortions, perhaps you've never heard of the Mexico City Policy that was rescinded by the Obama Administration in 2009, which now allows federal funds to pay for abortions overseas. And to say that federal funds do not fund abortions in the United States is to ignore the testimony of individuals who have worked for Planned Parenthood and know how the money is dispersed and utilized within the organization.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0515/abortion-debate-gallup-says-more-americans-pro-life http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
The link you posted has been removed, and not verifiable.
For you, abortions may not be health care, but for a woman, it is. As a man, you have rights over your internal organs, and what happens to them. This is no different for a woman. Women are not property, and they have equal rights as you do. It is their health, and it is care for the woman. Abortions are not like they used to be. Most are in the form of two pills. Here is testimony... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Ud3g2ymOM
Reversing the failed policies of the bush administration "abstinence only" programs, brings back practical life saving healthcare to countries we have been helping for decades with diseases and education. "Abstinence only" sounds great on paper, but in the real world, it doesn't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
So, the link worked this time. I looked at the graphs and the margin of error. "Gallup Poll Daily results are based on telephone interviews with 971 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 12-13, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points." It seems the results are within the margin of error and are moot (trend position based on women). The big difference is in men. When it comes down to a woman's reproductive rights, men don't matter.
http://www.familiesagainstplannedparenthood http://www.prolifeaction.org To read about the effect abortion has on women, read the stories at http://www.hopeafterabortion.com To read about the effect abortion has on men, go to http://www.menandabortion.info Each and every person has to make up his or her own mind about abortion and about Planned Parenthood.
Interesting article on the price tag of our military expenditures. Here is a huge area where we can cut government, buy the 100's of billions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/global-military-spending-_n_847257.html