Recently, I joined a recreational kickball team. Yes, I’m the only 65+ player—but why not?

During a game this weekend, a solid kick sailed just over my head at second base. In my earnest attempt to make the catch, I backpedaled, lost my footing, and landed hard—and dramatically—on my backside.

A much younger player leaned over and whispered, “Guys over 60 shouldn’t run backward on uneven ground.”

Boo. I was fine.

But back in my seat at Head Start WEST, as we draft comments on the Administration’s NPRM, Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs, I keep thinking about risk.

Why would we knowingly put at risk the strengths and impact of a 61-year-old program in pursuit of a short-term deregulatory agenda?

The proposed changes create risks that extend far beyond reducing paperwork.

Greater risk to children → reduced individualized attention. Higher ratios, fewer prescribed disability-service practices, reduced home-visiting requirements, and fewer service safeguards could move Head Start away from the individualized, comprehensive model that distinguishes it from basic child care.

Greater risk to the workforce → reduced quality and relationships. Teachers, home visitors, Family Service Workers, specialists, and administrative staff are not simply regulatory expenses. They are the people who make Head Start work. When savings are achieved by increasing workloads, reducing staffing, or decreasing service intensity, relationships and quality are placed at risk.

Greater risk to programs → greater legal uncertainty. Fewer federal regulations do not necessarily mean fewer legal responsibilities. Programs will still navigate the Head Start Act, IDEA, ADA and Section 504, civil-rights requirements, state licensing, employment law, and federal grant requirements. Removing the regulatory road map while retaining the legal obligations may create more uncertainty—not less.

Greater risk to a trusted resource → reduced national promise. Head Start has always represented something more than the minimum child-care standard in a particular state. Moving ratios, safety practices, transportation, and other protections toward state and local minimums risks creating a Head Start experience increasingly defined by ZIP code.

Greater risk to inclusive programming → reduced responsiveness to families. There is also a contradiction at the heart of the proposal. Programs are offered greater “flexibility” over ratios, caseloads, service duration, and safety requirements, while being given less flexibility elsewhere—including a new English-only education requirement and instruction presenting healthy marriage as a “positive good.”

As we prepare our comments and anticipate what may come next, we should distinguish between risks worth taking and safeguards worth keeping.

The Administration argues that deregulation could allow Head Start to serve more children. But serving more children means little if we weaken what children and families receive when they arrive.

Maybe my younger teammate had a point. When you know the terrain is uneven, running backward isn’t flexibility.

It’s risk.

And after 61 years of learning what helps children and families thrive, Head Start should know which risks are worth taking—and which ones we know better than to take.

In Partnership,

Ed Condon

Executive Director

Head Start WEST