Like nearly 40 million other Americans, I’m a Head Start alumna. For my parents, childcare was an expensive proposition, so while my veteran father enrolled in community college, he enrolled me in childcare. It was my earliest community, a place where first friendships were formed, self-awareness was cultivated and curiosity was exponential.
For over 60 years, Head Start has been the great equalizer, a pathway out of poverty that understands a child’s early education, health and economic opportunity set the stage for an abundant future. Today, the Department of Health and Human Services wants to dismantle what makes it so effective.
The proposed changes include removing staff-to-child ratio mandates, overcrowding classrooms and overwhelming teachers. HHS also wants to do away with evidence-based math and literacy standards, risking children’s kindergarten readiness. It would also cut support for infants, children with disabilities, and dual-language learners.
HHS says these changes will cut red tape and free up money for the program. But efficiency doesn’t mean gutting the national benchmarks that guarantee quality. The department also frames this as giving states and parents more control. However, this proposal weakens parents’ voices in their children’s learning and development, and it disempowers credentialed childcare operators.
Quality early education is prohibitively expensive for many families. Those who can afford it pay for private preschools with small classes, credentialed teachers and rigorous curricula. Head Start was built on the premise that those standards shouldn’t be reserved for whoever can pay for them.
Fortunately, these proposed changes aren’t final. I’m calling on everyone impacted by Head Start to speak out about what makes this program so special. The proposal is open to public comment in the Federal Register until Oct. 6.
Nicole Robinson, CEO of YWCA Metropolitan Chicago
Teens need accessible third spaces
The story “ ‘Zero fights’ at a Chicago teen beach gathering, but some adults left youth feeling discouraged” demonstrates how extraordinarily difficult it is for teens to find spaces where they can gather and enjoy themselves.
When I was a teenager, I never had to secure a municipal permit, establish a security checkpoint, coordinate funding and transportation, or recruit chaperones to enjoy what my community had to offer. Organizing a two-person picnic would’ve been a stretch for me back then. Thankfully, the young people who worked with the city and Project Exploration to help plan a permitted, supervised teen beach party are brighter, more organized, and more committed than I ever was at their ages.
Despite all their planning, however, their event encountered some difficulty with adult volleyball players who wanted to use the nets in the area the teens had reserved.
We don’t want teens taking over Downtown, but we don’t provide the spaces they need to be themselves. We want teens to invest their energy in productive outlets, but then we tear down the positive things they build. We’re expecting solutions from the people whose solutions we keep rejecting.
If we want to solve the “teen takeover” issue, we need to make it simpler for third spaces catering to young people to open and thrive.
In Chicago, whether you want to run the Salt Shed or just want to host a poetry reading in a tiny cafe, you need the same kind of license.
Any community business that wants to welcome young people into their space with fun activities or entertainment will have to first tackle zoning variations, byzantine applications and pay tens of thousands of dollars in fees.
What if, instead of ineffective snap curfews (that are rendered unenforceable with a big enough group), we had a movement of community-focused young people in coalition with small businesses to create the third spaces young people need to help our city thrive into the future? Let’s change city laws and public attitudes to make that vision possible.
Noah Bazis, University of Chicago Law School
Save this historic church
Don’t lose what you already have going for the community, because once it’s gone, it’s gone, metaphorically speaking.
I respectfully disagree with Lauren Pacheco’s statement that it’s not always possible for every historical site to be saved. It can be done, and has been done across the country. This is true of and for all structures. It just takes foresight and effort in many capacities.
I happened to see the recent headline while perusing social media, and it made me think, “What a beautiful and magnificent structure, even in ruin form.”
The church has so much potential for a communal space. Perhaps an arts and cultural museum, entertainment venue, an arboretum, additional housing, lodging, etc. The city could harness investments like grants from the state’s historical society, state bonding bill, and/or maybe partner with the very company that helped develop the aforementioned.
I do hope that Gary assesses its historical value and works with what you already have established. New isn’t always better. Redevelopment doesn’t always bring a fresh start in ways intended to take full advantage of a creative concept turned into reality.
The structure is an artist’s blank canvas to create. It’s worth fighting for.
Rhett Abrahamson, Duluth, Minnesota