Turtle Talk

This an update to my earlier post on Head Start here.

Comments on ACF’s proposed revision of the Head Start Program Performance Standards are due tomorrow, October 6.

The Tribal consultation record already reveals substantial agreement about the proposal’s principal defects. Tribal leaders and representatives generally support eliminating unnecessary federal paperwork. But they distinguish genuine burden reduction from removing federal standards, transferring authority to states, reducing funding, or weakening the comprehensive services that distinguish Head Start from ordinary child care.

As Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. explained, “Federal deregulation should mean greater tribal self-determination, not greater state authority over tribal programs.”

What Tribal Leaders Told ACF

ACF has posted consultation testimony from the Cherokee Nation, Santee Sioux Nation, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Santo Domingo Pueblo, Pueblo of Acoma, Oneida Nation, Makah Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Kawerak, Fort Belknap Indian Community, and others.

The testimony comes primarily from Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest, the Great Plains, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Oklahoma. I didn’t identify testimony from any Tribes in California, the Northeast, the Southeast, or Michigan. Additional comments from those regions could document circumstances not yet reflected in the record.

Across regions, Tribal witnesses repeatedly raised:

• Tribal authority and the danger of expanding state jurisdiction;
• the proposed reduction of the administrative cost ceiling from 15 percent to 5 percent;
• Native language immersion and Tribal control over curriculum;
• workforce shortages and culturally appropriate qualifications;
• rural transportation, facilities, fuel, freight, and service costs;
• health, disability, nutrition, mental health, and family services;
• adequate funding; and
• the need for consultation to affect the final rule.

The docket also contains approximately 1,918 substantially similar mass-template comments focused on Tribal sovereignty. None appears to have been submitted on behalf of a Tribal government or Tribal organization. Those filings make the scale of public concern visible, but they don’t replace comments documenting the legal, financial, and operational consequences for particular Tribal governments and programs.

Federal Deregulation Must Not Become State Regulation

The proposal repeatedly refers to state and local licensing, regulatory, and service standards. Tribal leaders warned that these references could create uncertainty about which government’s laws apply and could be read to expand state authority over Tribal programs.

The final rule should:

• recognize Tribal law wherever it refers to state or local law;
• state that the regulations don’t create or expand state jurisdiction;
• recognize Tribal licensing and approval systems;
• recognize Tribal CCDF standards where appropriate; and
• preserve a federal floor where no otherwise applicable Tribal, state, or local standard exists.

Port Gamble S’Klallam Chairwoman Amber Caldera recommended “affirmatively recognizing applicable tribal standards as governing tribal Head Start programs where the federal standards defer to state or local laws.”

Callie Parr of Butte, Montana, proposed more specific language:

“In recognition of Tribal authority, any reference to state or local law, regulations, licensing standards or other requirements apply only to the extent these requirements are otherwise legally applicable to the program. In cases where there is a potential conflict with state laws and oversight, final authority rests with the Tribal government.”

Although Parr wasn’t commenting on behalf of an identified Tribe, her language gives Tribal governments something concrete to support, reject, or refine.

The Five Percent Cap Doesn’t Fit Tribal Programs

The proposed reduction of the administrative cost ceiling from 15% to 5% was one of the most consistent objections during consultation. Fiscal administration, audits, human resources, procurement, technology, facilities, and government oversight are necessary operating functions. Many of these costs remain fixed when enrollment declines. Small and geographically dispersed programs can’t spread them across thousands of children.

The Director of Sicangu Lakota Oyate Head Start and Early Head Start reported approximately $595,530 in administrative and indirect costs, or about 7.9% of the program’s annual budget. A 5% ceiling would leave a gap of approximately $218,451.

Comments can add a program’s actual figures, identify which functions would be left unfunded, and ask ACF to retain the 15% ceiling, recognize negotiated indirect cost rates, or exempt AI/AN programs.

Rural Costs Aren’t Marginal Costs

Luisa Machuca of Kawerak reported that gas had risen to $26/gallon in Shungnak, Alaska. Fuel in Nome had reached $7.25/gallon and couldn’t be replenished by barge until the following summer. Other witnesses described air- and water-only transportation, limited housing, small substitute pools, aging facilities, high freight and construction costs, scarce behavioral health providers, and fixed expenses that don’t decline with enrollment.

Comments can document transportation distances, fuel and freight costs, facilities conditions, weather interruptions, limited vendors, provider shortages, and workforce competition. These facts can show why Tribal programs need categorical protections rather than discretionary waivers granted one program at a time.

Language Authority Includes Workforce Authority

The consultation record rejects the idea that Native language instruction should depend on a narrow or undefined exception to an English-priority rule.

Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Vice President Paulette Moreno stated, “Our languages and culture are not optional.”

Machuca also explained that a community member may speak the local language, understand traditional child-rearing practices, know the families, and have years of experience with children even if that expertise isn’t reflected on a college transcript.

A rule can nominally permit Native language instruction while making it impossible to hire the people qualified to provide it. Comments can ask ACF to protect immersion and revitalization affirmatively, recognize Tribal authority over curriculum, and allow competency-based pathways incorporating language fluency, cultural knowledge, mentoring, and community experience.

Comprehensive Services Aren’t Administrative Burdens

Tribal witnesses also warned against removing standards supporting developmental screening, disability services, mental health consultation, oral health, nutrition, family support, transportation, and protections against exclusionary discipline.

Fort Belknap summarized the issue as “Saving money should not be a child’s responsibility.”

Comments can explain which services would otherwise be unavailable locally, how Head Start connects families with providers, and how federal standards help programs secure funding and partnerships. They can also ask ACF to confirm that removing a federal requirement doesn’t make the associated service an unallowable use of Head Start funds.

Consultation Must Change the Rule

Muckleshoot Policy Council Chairman Wayne Buchanan told ACF, “Meaningful government-to-government consultation must affect the outcome.”

Tribal submissions ask ACF to continue consultation before finalizing the rule, prepare a Tribal impact analysis, allow adequate time for Tribal review, and explain how significant Tribal recommendations were accepted or rejected.

The record already identifies the major defects. What it still needs is more provision-specific evidence from more Tribal governments and regions, including actual costs, applicable Tribal laws, program consequences, and proposed regulatory language.

A Useful Comment Can Be Short

A useful comment can do four things:

1. Identify the Tribe, program, or community;
2. Identify one proposed change;
3. Explain what that change would do locally; and
4. Tell ACF what it should retain, withdraw, exempt, or clarify.

Because public comments and consultation testimony are separate processes, Tribes wishing to ensure consideration in both may submit the same statement through both channels.

Comments and written Tribal consultation testimony are due tomorrow, Oct 6, 2026 by 11:59 PM EDT.

The mass-template filings have made the breadth of public concern visible, and Tribal consultation has established the principal governmental concerns. What the record still needs is broader regional representation and concrete evidence that ACF must consider before finalizing the rule.

• View the rulemaking docket and submit a public comment online here.
• Tribal governments may submit written consultation testimony to AIANHeadStart@acf.hhs.gov.
• Public comments may also be emailed to Deregulation@acf.hhs.gov with ACF-2026-0595 or 0970-AD30 in the subject line.
• URL links for Tribal-related comments on the proposed Head Start rule are available here. (note: document links are now clickable)
• Tribal Comments submitted during the Tribal consultation can be read on a single document here.