Head Start tantrum
There's a lot of screeching coming out of Washington, D.C., these days as Congress crafts a bill to reauthorize Head Start, a federal program established in 1965 to promote school readiness through educational, health and social services to preschool children of low-income families.
Research indicates that although Head Start students as a group improve in terms of social skills and access to health care, they still lag behind their peers academically, so changes appear to be warranted. But getting the details right is crucial to ensuring that change is improvement.
As the parties wrestle over the $6.5 billion budget, the role of the states, rules for Head Start-affiliated faith-based groups and what aspects of the program should be expanded or eliminated, there's one important thing everyone should keep in mind: what's best for the kids.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the board, L. Kelly
Now, that's not a big deal until you consider what it does and doesn't say. It doesn't whine about more money being the cure-all. It acknowledges the study that found HS ineffective in most areas. It mentions faith-based groups without foaming at the mouth. Etc... To me, it's an honest position for a paper to take. There are no plans on the table so they are not trying to push someone's agenda before the fact. It is not knee-jerk, give the teachers money no matter what the result. It's not hostile to people of faith. Mostly, they take that kind of approach to things. If you land on the losing side, they resist defaming you (for the most part). They fall into this "voters were sleeping" stuff when conservatives come up big, and anyone I love as a representative is sure to be an "idealogue" or otherwise way too principled. My candidates/represenatives are also going to be embarassing, backwards, etc... But really, I can live with all of that. It beats the alternative. They do criticize their own too (differently).