Report Says Head Start Children are Inadequately Prepared for School

GOPUSA ^ | June 10, 2003 | Jeremy Reynalds - Talon News

[yoe]

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) titled "Strengthening Head Start: What the Evidence Shows," Head Start children are not adequately prepared for school, and those who have been in the program still enter kindergarten lagging far behind the typical American child in skills needed for school readiness.

Admittedly, the gap between Head Start children and the general population of pre-school age children does narrow during the Head Start year on key components of school readiness. And in addition, Head Start children do benefit from increased social skills as well as the health and other benefits delivered through the program.

But according to the report, Head Start students still enter kindergarten with very low average abilities in areas known to predict future school success. The report deals with specific areas known to improve school readiness and says skills could be better taught, especially if already-existing resources were used more effectively.

"Head Start needs to do better in helping children be ready to succeed in school," HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said. "Merely narrowing the readiness gap by a few points is not a real head start. These children are still too far from equal opportunity. All of us in the Head Start community need to set our sights higher."

Thompson said President Bush's plans for strengthening Head Start would bring about improvements preparing Head Start children for school. The proposals would enable states to integrate Head Start programs into their preschool preparedness efforts in order to make better use of resources.

These changes would build on efforts already underway to increase educational levels of Head Start teachers and hold each individual Head Start program more accountable for results, with technical assistance provided to programs that need improvement.

The report concludes that the 38-year-old program "is not eliminating the gap in educational skills and knowledge needed for school." According to the report, "Head Start is not fully achieving its stated purpose of promoting school readiness ... Indeed, these low-income children continue to perform significantly below their more advantaged peers in reading and mathematics once they enter school."

The report cites recent findings for children who entered the program in the fall of 2000, comparing them with the average (or 50th percentile) preschool child.

In key areas that predict school success, the report says that in vocabulary, children overall entered Head Start with scores in the 16th percentile of all preschoolers of their age, and the score increased to the 23rd percentile when measured in the spring.

In letter recognition, children entered Head Start in the 31st percentile, and their scores remained unchanged or even declined slightly in relation to all preschool students after the year in the program.

In early writing, children entered Head Start in the 16th percentile and increased only to the 19th.

In early mathematics, children entered Head Start in the 21st percentile and increased only to the 23rd percentile, which is "not a substantial gain toward national averages," according to the report.

The report synthesizes relevant research and cites specific areas that have been identified by the U.S. Department of Education as key components of school preparedness (basic literacy skills, being read to at least three times a week, numbers and shapes recognition, productive approaches to learning including task persistence and ability to pay attention, and good health).

[yoe]

The whole concept is still day-care, play-school not a place for young children to learn anything beyond getting along. Reading to a child "three times" a week is nice by hardly the leg up these children are looking for. Restructure the entire concept and put teachers, student teachers in charge – not so many unemployed mothers. And don’t anyone suggest more money – the program is heavily endowed now with federal funds. If those funds aren’t reaching the programs, then someone had better start investigating.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Change the name to simply, "Start".

[Diver Dave]

The report concludes that the 38-year-old program "is not eliminating the gap in educational skills and knowledge needed for school."

It's taken 38 years to come to this conclusion? Duh!

[camle]

the more we rely upon government funded part time child rearing, the more our kids fail. The more money we give them, the more we wonder why.

actually, we do know the reason - these programs advocate parental abdication of parental roles to the government.

[Semper Paratus]

When I ask liberals to name an effective Federal program, Head Start is always the answer.

[RicocheT]

Head Start began with the usual good intentions. It rapidly dumbed down to a day care with lunch & snack program. At this level, it's a darn expensive way to get the kids out of mama's hair.

If Head Start is to continue to get our tax dollars, it should be made to have real value for the kids by setting some meaningful education standards.

[RAT Patrol]

As someone who taught Sunday School to pre-schoolers for a number of years, I can tell you that a pre-K's world revolves around mommy and daddy. If that's a secure issue, the kid can manage in class (although there is always a separation issue to some extent). Their learning is totally tied to their emotional self at that age. Their emotions are tied to their families. To some extent, a kid without a solid family foundation is like a flower without adequate sunshine. It just cannot grow as well. There is no substitute, at least not early. The compensation is far more achievable later. That's my personal observation.

On that note, I think our tax dollars would be better spent -- if we must get involved -- by paying a person to love the kid (hugs, conversation, etc..). Can you do that? Because that's what they need.

[T Minus Four]

...the 38-year-old program...

Great Scott, the first kids in this program are in their forties, and they're just now figuring out the program is inadequate?!

[RightWhale]

Trouble in the State Nursery?

[goodnesswins]

Get the GOVERNMENT OUT of Head Start.....get the Churches in it....then see what happens.

[Jakarta ex-pat]

"the more we rely upon government funded part time child rearing, the more our kids fail."

I'm not convinced.

I was brought up in "rural" England, where I was exposed to a fine "government" funded education.

In fact, I doubt I could have gone to school otherwise.

I will defer that my "education" was family orientated.

However, I had teachers, of which who kicked arse.

Yes, there was little "diversity". But still, they kicked arse.

In conclusion............?

[fml]

LOL. They could now be teaching in a head start class room.

[RAT Patrol]

Do you think that applies to 3 year olds though?

[Jakarta ex-pat]

Head start children have only one way.

Through their parents.

Apologies if this doesn't answer your question.

[jimt]

They seem to be dithering all around the point that the problem with these children is their parents. Too many of these kids come from "single parent" families - ones where some idiot has gotten pregnant from an irresponsible sperm donor. These "single parents" can't even properly take care of themselves, let alone a child. The poor bastard loses out every time.

The others not from "single parent families" come from those where the parents are too ignorant and poor to provide a decent environment, and too perverse to consider that bringing a child into such an environment is child abuse, pure and simple.

If these kids were to be given a real "head start", they'd be adopted out to real families and the "mother" and "father" somehow cajoled into not producing any kids that can't be cared for.

Head Start doesn't have ANY effect after these kids have been in school for a while. Because they're still living in a toilet.

[CIBvet]

Seems pretty obvious to me ... bring decent paying (manufacturing) jobs back to the U.S. so that that the average American father can once again bring home a family-supportive paycheck on Friday night and keep Americas families together. Then and only then will American Moms be able to choose to stay at home and do the job that Moms do best ... love and nurture a healthy family.

But Nooooooooo, the Globaloney-ists have put together a real 'Free Trade MONEY-PUMP' and they could care less about the obvious economic decline of our nation, and it's devastating effect upon the very foundation of American Society, the Family. All because they're just too busy raking in the big $$$, and they're too myopic to see how this could EVER negatively effect them or theirs.

They are part of the ' THE I'VE GOT MINE CLUB' (so screw the rest of those little people') .... sooo selfish and greedy, sooo arrogant, and they will eventually find out, sooo wrong.

[RAT Patrol]

I agree. I also agree that public education has the potential of being highly effective, as does nearly every educational alternative. I don't think it matters how you learn. The problem in the U.S. is that public education has become an arm of the democratic party. They are more intested in pushing liberal ideology and funneling tax dollars to their friends than they are in educating kids. That's how it looks to me anyway.

I do not pretend to be anyone's educational success story. Nor do I claim to have all the answers. But I have lived long enough to observe a few truths about how kids learn.

[Howlin]

and those who have been in the program still enter kindergarten lagging far behind the typical American child in skills needed for school readiness.

So where were these "typical American children" that were NOT in Head Start? Is there a group out there that is NOT in Head Start, but is STILL ahead of the Head Start group?

Who are they?

[Old Professer]

This is not news to the Silk Purse Guild.

[RAT Patrol]

Good question. I think they mean everyone else. That's the way I took it. In a battle of readiness, Head Start participants lose to non-participants. That's pretty damning, imo.

[laurav]

I would take issue with some of your characteristics of the two-parent family head start kids. My college roommate was a Head Start kid, because her (married) parents had just immigrated from Vietnam when she was preschool age. Her father was in medical school, so they were quite poor. They were responsible, good parents, they just had a tough time for a few years. Since, he has gone on to pay millions of dollars in taxes and send his kids to Ivy League schools.

This doesn't defend the Head Start program, which in many cases is little more than a way to make sure the kid is eating breakfast and lunch and not being neglected for at least a few hours a day. These kids deserve to be given a real head start, not the inadequate training for school many do receive.

But while many of the parents are irresponsible, some aren't. I don't like painting with too broad a brush.

[Amelia]

The others not from "single parent families" come from those where the parents are too ignorant and poor to provide a decent environment, and too perverse to consider that bringing a child into such an environment is child abuse, pure and simple.

I think if I were put in charge of reforming HeadStart, the first thing I'd implement is a requirement that the parents or caregivers spend a certain amount of time per week in parenting skills classes - because part of the problem with these children is the parents, and it won't be remedied unless changes are made at home.

[sandydipper]

The blind leading the incompetent - a very liberal idea to redistribute your wealth.

[RAT Patrol]

My question is, would your friend's parents have been able to find another way? Do you think your friend could have (or would have) succeeded anyway? Since so many seem to fail anyway, I am not sure you can draw a direct connection between your friend's Head Start experience and her success. I suspect your friend's success had more to do with her family than anything else.

It would be different if you could see positive results in a majority of the kids. But it looks like their success stories divide down the same lines as before: Good family, good results; bad family, bad results.

[exhaustedmomma]

From related article:
But many in his party are attempting to shift more of the responsibility for maintaining the nation's social fabric onto the states, and Head Start is next in line.
A Republican bill in the House would let states decide which local programs get Head Start money, increase funding and also set the standards to measure teachers and what they teach.
Some critics argue that the changes foreshadow the "dismantling" of Head Start.
Legislation seeks to shift Head Start program to states' control

[ican'tbelieveit]

First, I think putting kids in "school" at younger and younger ages accomplishes nothing. If anything, let kids be kids before elementary school age. They don't get to do it again. Besides, more bonding time with parents, if that is a possibility.

Second, this comment struck me as amusing: And in addition, Head Start children do benefit from increased social skills

Those all important social skills... the major battle cry of the antihomeschool movement. And yet, I can draw a conclusion from this study. Even though these kids had "increased social skills," they didn't exceed otherwise. The antihomeschool movement would have you think that a child will fail without these skills.

Besides, what social skills are they referring to? How to get along with others? Give me a break. If people think the only place that that skill can be learned is in public school, maybe they should visit the crap visited on children by their classmates in a public school.

[Valpal1]

Head Start parent's are required to participate in the class room and parenting education courses. Hell, they even do home visits in some programs.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

As a former Head Start Supervisor, I can tell you why they make no progress, esp. in comparison to tuition based private or church pre-school programs.

Head Start curriculum is Socialism from start to finish, there is little to no academics, no counting drills, no ABC's, nada. Private tuition based programs are responsive to the parents who pay the bills. Head Start is not. It fills the children's head with mush and teaches the parents how to play victims R us.

They select "promising" parents to coach and train every year to testify before Congress whenever their funding is questioned.

Head Start has always been a prime program to keep the masses dumb and dependant on the system.

It will never change, ever. It can only be ended.

[LiteKeeper]

Education SITREP

[jimt]

But while many of the parents are irresponsible, some aren't.

You are correct. Some indeed aren't.

But the fact is, most Head Start kids have crummy parents. What is a person doing having children when they can't provide meals and care?

That seems to me the height of irresponsibility. I detest those folks, and am sick and tired of having to pay for their idiocy.

[Valpal1]

From the article you linked,"With a budget of nearly $6.7 billion, Head Start serves nearly a million children. The Kansas City area, which receives $32.7 million a year from the federal government, enrolls more than 3,800 children."

What they are spending $5000+ per child? KC has good grant writers, they are pulling down $8600 per kid. And they still can't teach a 4 yr. old their ABC's.

Course the publick schools in OR spend $10,000 per student and can't teach jack either. Just imagine if they gave the money to the parents to pay for private school, tutors or whatever they deemed best for their kids.

[laurav]

I do think my friend would have succeeded anyway... this seems to be the problem with many government (and charity for that matter) programs. Most people are very willing to help those who just need a bit of help to get back on their feet. What they aren't willing to support is chronic bad choices and dependency. My complaint was more the other poster's statement that implied that parents who were using Head Start should have their children taken away from them because they're irresponsible for having children when they need government assistance to provide things like preschool. In my friend's case, Head Start was the best quality preschool her parents could afford, and it helped her learn English and other such things until they could afford the private schools they sent her to later.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Or how about "Head" (as in where you go potty on a boat)?

[Conspiracy Guy]

That's even better. You are an idea person.

[RAT Patrol]

Most people are very willing to help those who just need a bit of help to get back on their feet. What they aren't willing to support is chronic bad choices and dependency.

I agree 100%.

[RAT Patrol]

You know, if the gov't gave the money directly to parents (biological, adoptive, foster) IF one parent stayed home and cared for the kid(s), I wonder if the outcome would improve.

[Valpal1]

One thing I have learned is that people, bureaucrats and private indviduals always arrange things to benefit themseelves.

Give a bureaurcrat $5000 per child and he will creatively promote spending decisions that actually benefit himself, wether it be environmental improvements (better buildings/furnishings, prestige and status or "educational staff improvements" that raise his pay rankings over other choices that benefit his clients more and himself less.

Give parents $5000 per child and they will creatively spend it to improve their lives and the lives of their children.

Which model results in the most money actually being spent on the child's education? 3 guesses and the first two don't count.

[LauraJean]

They have known it before. There have been no longitudial studies that show that children in Head Start did any better then their classmates. This goes back to the 1980s when I took a class on early childhood.

I believe Maxine Waters was once a head start teacher and Loretto Sanchez had gone to head start when she was just a tiny little lib.

[Amelia]

Thanks for the perspective. I knew it wasn't working, your post helps explain why.

[timm22]

After so many posts, I'm stunned that no one has asked this question:

Where does the Constitution authorize the creation of a Head Start Program?

[bvw]

No where. States could do it, alone or in some association.

[timm22]

No where. States could do it, alone or in some association.

Assuming, of course, that such programs were authorized by the state constitutions.

I would still say such programs are immoral and inappropriate for governments to undertake.

[bvw]

It is appropriate to insure that the next generation is educated. (State and Local level!) It is clear that post WWII public education is like a huge single-crop ag district -- okay for many years, but once a blight hits (and it has) no field is left unruined.