Head Start Would Be English-Only Under Proposed Trump Overhaul

Here are the morning’s top stories on Monday, August 31, 2026

• The Trump administration wants to overhaul Head Start, an early education and antipoverty program that serves about 75,000 children in California. The proposed rules would strip away regulations on class sizes, disciplinary policies and other standards, but buried in that proposal is a requirement to teach only in English.
• Immigration agents arrested more people in Northern California in July than at any previous time in President Donald Trump’s second term. That’s according to new data from UC Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project.
• A recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California is linking a voter-backed proposition to a rise in homelessness.

Lok Yuen Early Learning Center is a preschool in San Francisco’s Chinatown that serves low-income families who qualify for Head Start.

The children enrolled here come from households that speak a variety of languages: Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish and Arabic. So to connect with the kids and get them accustomed to the classroom, teacher Jennifer Lee Yuen tries to speak a few words in their home languages.

“Even if we don’t know their language, being able to learn one or two words like, saying good morning, ‘Hola, como estas?’ or in Chinese greeting them in their language, it can make them feel welcome.”

But these practices could end under a proposal to reform the 61-year-old program led by Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy. Earlier this month, he unveiled a plan that would remove federal requirements for class sizes, staff qualifications and other standards with the goal of cutting administrative costs and increasing access to Head Start. Within that plan to eliminate “unnecessary bureaucracy,” however, is a new requirement that programs teach only in English.

“It worried me a lot because every single year there are children who are bilingual or learning English,” said Yuen when she heard that the Trump administration wants her to teach only in English. “If they go through with it, it’s gonna be very difficult to connect with the children and meet their needs.

Head Start has long supported English learners and even has a rule requiring programs to hire bilingual teachers or aides when a majority of kids enrolled speak another language. But Trump administration officials say that kind of rule is “at odds” with the president’s executive order, declaring English as the nation’s official language. And that learning English would open economic opportunities for kids.

This creates a false choice between learning English and maintaining the child’s home language.

Martha Hernandez is executive director of Californians Together, an organization in Long Beach that advocates for multilingual education.

Education experts like her say there’s good evidence that children learn English faster when they get access to a dual language education that supports their home language.

“We absolutely want children to develop strong English. The question is whether we have to ask a 3- or 4-year-old to give up the language they already know in order to do that,” said Hernandez.

Advocates for Head Start say this proposal, if it goes through, could especially affect Head Start programs in California that serve babies and toddlers, who are just learning to talk and often in a non-English language. And it would impact Migrant Head Start, which serves the children of farmworkers.

An English-only federal requirement would take a decision away from local educators and communities, including communities that have really successfully built programs around the languages of the families that they serve.

The administration says programs can apply for waivers to specific requirements under the proposed rules, which are open to public comments until October 6th.

Back at the preschool, Jennifer Lee Yuen says recognizing children’s home language in the classroom lets them know their teachers care.

“The important thing is that we are helping children learn how to regulate their emotions and feel safe in an environment. And it’s my job to help children feel comfortable and safe and build that trust.”

She says when children feel that way, then they’re open to learning.

Arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have surged all over the nation – even as the Trump administration has backed off high-profile raids.

Across Northern California, ICE arrested nearly 900 people in July. That’s 60% more than in February.

Immigration lawyers say arrests are happening at airports and green-card interviews, mostly at ICE check-ins.

Lourdes Martinez is with Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland. She says people should call a rapid response hotline to assess their risk before ICE appointments.

“In particular, parents with small children. If they are going to take a risk of being detained and not coming home that evening, what is plan B if the parent doesn’t get to come home to the children?”

But arrests are much higher in Texas and Florida than in California, where the law prevents local police from conducting immigration arrests.

Angela Chan is with San Francisco’s public defender’s office.

“California has the highest number of immigrants compared to any other state. And we’re not leading in terms of the number of ICE arrests. And that’s likely largely due to our sanctuary laws.”

ICE says anyone in the country illegally is a target for arrest.

Proposition 47 passed in 2014. It reduced certain drug crimes from felonies down to misdemeanors. The idea was to keep people out of jails and prison. But researchers say they may be winding up on the streets instead.

The PPIC is reporting Proposition 47 likely led to an estimated increase in street homelessness of about 10% between 2015 and 2019. The study suggests the measure increased drug use (as measured by overdose deaths and hospitalizations) by between 7% and 8%.

Researchers also found evidence that Prop 47 led to a 20% reduction in the number of Californians receiving drug treatment, because the courts referred fewer people into treatment programs after it passed.

“Ever since Prop. 47 was passed in 2014, there’s been a lot of critics of that particular reform,” said Magnus Lofstrom, the PPIC report’s lead author. “It’s important to have a sense of what are those potential impacts.”

This appears to be the first study to show a direct link between Prop. 47 and homelessness. The findings are sure to add fuel to an already raging debate over the causes and best ways to fight homelessness: with proponents of a tough-on-crime approach on one side arguing addiction is a primary driver of homelessness and police should crack down on drug use and encampments, and homeless advocates on the other arguing the state’s sky-high cost of living is to blame and building more housing is the answer.

While the researchers couldn’t determine exactly why homelessness increased, Lofstrom said it’s likely a result of a combination of increased drug use and people who used to be sleeping in jails now sleeping on the street instead.

The report was met with skepticism by some experts in the field. Ron Hochbaum, a law professor at the University of the Pacific and director of the Buccola Family Homeless Advocacy Clinic, said while the researchers may have found a correlation between Prop. 47 and an increase in homelessness, saying the two were directly linked appears to be a stretch.

“I think it is more likely that two phenomena happened at the same time,” he said.