Shame all the advantages of head start vanish after just 3 years. Apparently making 3 year olds wards of the state only helps them so much when they come from single parent households. Only so much the gub'ment can do to raise our kids right.
@1 Wrong!

@1 Do you have a source for your "all advantages disappear after 3 years" statement, or is it just "see: my rectum"?
Head Start: A Tragic Waste of Money

Head Start, the most sacrosanct federal education program, doesn’t work.

That’s the finding of a sophisticated study just released by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services.

Created in 1965, the comprehensive preschool program for 3- and 4-year olds and their parents is meant to narrow the education gap between low-income students and their middle- and upper-income peers. Forty-five years and $166 billion later, it has been proven a failure.

“Instead of throwing more dollars at this proven failure, President Obama might consider throwing his weight behind proven successes.”
The bad news came in the study released this month: It found that, by the end of the first grade, children who attended Head Start are essentially indistinguishable from a control group of students who didn’t.

What’s so damning is that this study used the best possible method to review the program: It looked at a nationally representative sample of 5,000 children who were randomly assigned to either the Head Start (“treatment”) group or to the non-Head Start (“control”) group.

Random assignment is the “gold standard” of medical and social-science research: It gives investigators confidence that the treatment and control groups are essentially identical in every respect except their access to Head Start. So if eventual test performances differ, we can be pretty sure that the difference was caused by the program. No previous study of Head Start used this approach on a nationally representative sample of children.

When the researchers gave both groups of students 44 different academic tests at the end of the first grade, only two seemed to show even marginally significant advantages for the Head Start group. And even those apparent advantages vanished after standard statistical controls were applied.

In fact, not a single one of the 114 tests administered to first graders — of academics, socio-emotional development, health care/health status and parenting practice — showed a reliable, statistically significant effect from participating in Head Start.

Some advocates of the program have acknowledged these dramatic results, but suggest that it’s not necessarily Head Start’s fault if its effects vanish during kindergarten and the first grade — perhaps our K-12 schools are to blame.

But that’s beside the point. Even if it’s true, it means that Head Start will be of no lasting value to children until we fix our elementary and secondary schools. Until then, money spent on Head Start will continue to be wasted.

Yet the Obama administration remains enthusiastic. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan both want to boost funding for Head Start — that is, to spend more on a program that’s sure to fail. That’s after the president already raised spending on the program from $6.8 billion to $9.2 billion last year.

Instead of throwing more dollars at this proven failure, President Obama might consider throwing his weight behind proven successes. A federal program that pays private-school tuition for poor DC families, for instance, has been shown to raise students’ reading performance by more than two grade levels after just three years, compared to a control group of students who stayed in public schools. And it does so at about a quarter the cost to taxpayers of DC’s public schools.

Sadly, Obama and Duncan have ignored the DC program’s proven success. Neither lifted a finger to save it when Democrats in Congress pulled the plug on its funding last year.

Perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect national Democrats to end a Great Society program, even when it’s a proven failure. Perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect them to stand up to teachers’ union opposition and support private-school-choice programs that are proven successes.

Of course, until last week, it seemed unrealistic to expect a Republican to win the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. If voters get angry enough with federal education politics, national Democrats may start learning from their state-level colleagues who are starting to support effective policies like school choice. Or they may just lose their seats, too.
"It's not fair!" the rest of the state will scream. "Why do Seattle-area children get preschool and ours don't?" That's what it will take for Republican legislators to support raising the revenue necessary to make a statewide program possible.

Yes, but you got that backwards - in wingnut reasoning, the next step is to say, "If we don't have it, they can't have it either!" They've proven this time and time again.
@5 I mention that possibility in my post. But that's why it's so important to have a Democratic governor: to veto bullshit.
Um, for someone pointing out how much blue counties pay for the red counties in our state hands down... This isn't about whether or not first start is a benefit. It is an issue of how to pay for it. Tagging the wealthy helps in a small jurisdiction. It doesn't help to address where first start was originally funded from. It was a nationally funded reform. Now that has been drastically cut, jurisdictions are trying to compensate. Should the state compensate. Or should smaller jurisdictions only cover themselves. New York is a very expensive place to live.On average, the wealthy can afford to pay for the impoverished in the rest of New York. The rest of the state is not the same.
Are nation stands in the same crisis. There are states that can afford to subsidize the cost of the federally cut early start programs. There are states then cannot. The states that cannot are often the neediest of these funds.
With the polarization and ineffectiveness of congress, jurisdictions are looking more introspectively how to take care of there own. Jurisdictions with the highest income inequalities are focusing on how to keep the rich richer. The rich are in power. In more moderate, and higher middle class populated jurisdictions, they are looking to keep their money where it came from.
As a result, the Tea party has gain strongholds on both middle class America and the powerful rich. We only want to pay for what immediately benefits us. This consensus only exasperates the disparity.
The New York state vs city is a jurisdictional issue. It is also a political one.
Or you could, you know, wait to have kids til you could afford their education.

You could, if you aren't a liberal who believes the world owes them cradle to grave nanny state bullshit anyway...
Absolutely! I firmly support the right of adults to decide when to have sex and what legal contraceptive is used to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Infanticide to end a life you chose by carelessness or promiscuity or drunkenness to start? Nah, not so much
@Goldstein correction

That's why it's so important to have a Democrat governor, to sign bullshit.

No thanks necessary, Mr. Goldstein. You have to admit, for rational folks it males more sense that way.
Why am I not surprised that seattleblue's answer to child poverty is "woman should have kept her legs closed"? In a country where half of pregnancies are unplanned, being opposed to abortion and opposed to aid for impoverished children is, practically speaking, immoral.
@10: Except that many many unwanted pregnancies have nothing to do with the vices you reference. Plenty of people have birth control fail on them (it happens sometimes) or intentionally get pregnant but find that they're carrying a tragically malformed fetus doomed to a short and painful existence should it be carried to term.
It must be nice to live in your fantasy world where everything happens for a reason and makes sense in black and white and you know best.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.