Full Version: Proposed Cuts To Head Start Programs
Some have proposed that a reduction in Federal spending should include Head Start programs.
Link
This is from the NHSA itself, so obviously they oppose any cuts in the strongest possible way. The word "decimated" is a little extreme, I think. However, Head Start has the reputation of being one of the rare government programs which is a great success. Of course, nothing comes without a cost.
To be debated:
Should Head Start programs receive less Federal funding, more Federal funding, or stay about the same?
Link
QUOTE
Despite being one of the most successful programs in the federal government, Head Start, which gets America's poorest children ready to learn in kindergarten and beyond, would be decimated by funding cuts equal to 35,432 fewer classroom slots – including 500 or more in each of 23 states – under a proposed 2 percent reduction in federal discretionary spending, according to the National Head Start Association (NHSA).
This is from the NHSA itself, so obviously they oppose any cuts in the strongest possible way. The word "decimated" is a little extreme, I think. However, Head Start has the reputation of being one of the rare government programs which is a great success. Of course, nothing comes without a cost.
To be debated:
Should Head Start programs receive less Federal funding, more Federal funding, or stay about the same?
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Nov 30 2005, 04:11 AM)
The word "decimated" is a little extreme, I think.
:nod, Methinks that the word originated around Roman times, the killing of one-in-ten, that would imply a 10% reduction. Perhaps the Head Starters should have listened in class
To be debated:Should Head Start programs receive less Federal funding, more Federal funding, or stay about the same?
Hold on to your hat Victoria, but I'm going to say I think it ought to remain. I will always think that it is no substitute for parents, but, alas, it is what it is. I'm sure that if the infamous "waste and fraud" that is present in any government program were eliminated they could do more with less. I can't really see that happening here, nor anywhere else for that matter.
I think the program appears to be successful from what I've read. Too bad we can't figure out a way to encourage the parents to give them a "Head Start"...
To be debated:Should Head Start programs receive less Federal funding, more Federal funding, or stay about the same?If discretionary spending is to be cut by 2%, then Head Start should be cut by 2% as well.
I see here that the enrollment is around 900,000 kids at a cost of about $6.8 Billion, a cost of $7,222 per child.
With all due respect to the hand-wringers at NHSA, if they can't cut 2% from their budgets, they should all be dismissed. Any budget of any type, particularly one that approaches $7 Billion can be cut by 2%. To say otherwise is ludicrous.
As for Head Start being "one of the most effective government programs," it would be nice if the government would evaluate its programs with a hint of impartiality. But the reality is that they are fighting for budgets, which equal power in Washington. Republicans had been fighting to revise this program, but were stimied in 2003. Now, a Clinton-commissioned study is done, and the results of Head Start are so-so.
Link
This reminds me of DARE - a program that makes everybody feel good but is not measured against key performance indicators. For $7000, you could put your kid into Montesorri preschool. And if they don't perform, you could take your money elsewhere.
I see here that the enrollment is around 900,000 kids at a cost of about $6.8 Billion, a cost of $7,222 per child.
With all due respect to the hand-wringers at NHSA, if they can't cut 2% from their budgets, they should all be dismissed. Any budget of any type, particularly one that approaches $7 Billion can be cut by 2%. To say otherwise is ludicrous.
As for Head Start being "one of the most effective government programs," it would be nice if the government would evaluate its programs with a hint of impartiality. But the reality is that they are fighting for budgets, which equal power in Washington. Republicans had been fighting to revise this program, but were stimied in 2003. Now, a Clinton-commissioned study is done, and the results of Head Start are so-so.
Link
QUOTE(Seattle P-I)
For 4-year-olds (half the program), only six of 30 measures of social and cognitive development and family functioning showed statistically significant gains. Results were somewhat better for 3-year-olds but most of the differences were not statistically significant.
For both age groups, the actual gains were limited, making them unlikely to lead to later increases in school achievement. Even after spending about six months in Head Start, 4-year-olds could identify only two more letters than those who were not in the program, and 3-year-olds could identify one and one-half more letters. No gains were detected in more important measures such as early math learning, oral comprehension (more indicative of later reading comprehension), motivation to learn or social competencies, including the ability to interact with peers and teachers.
If the "Head Start" is not likely to lead to later increases in school achievement, then it's not a head start. It's only a head start if you stay ahead of the curve throughout life.For both age groups, the actual gains were limited, making them unlikely to lead to later increases in school achievement. Even after spending about six months in Head Start, 4-year-olds could identify only two more letters than those who were not in the program, and 3-year-olds could identify one and one-half more letters. No gains were detected in more important measures such as early math learning, oral comprehension (more indicative of later reading comprehension), motivation to learn or social competencies, including the ability to interact with peers and teachers.
QUOTE(ibid)
Instead of acknowledging the troubling significance of those findings, the Head Start world immediately went on the offensive. The Head Start Association, for example, claimed that the study is "good news for Head Start" and warned that "those who have resolved to trash Head Start at every turn will twist this data to their ends" as part of their "continued attempts to dismantle the program."
<snip>
No single evaluation should decide Head Start's fate but this new study reinforces a developing professional consensus about its limitations.
Perhaps the best indication of Head Start's declining reputation comes from low-income parents themselves, who often choose not to place their children in Head Start.
<snip>
No single evaluation should decide Head Start's fate but this new study reinforces a developing professional consensus about its limitations.
Perhaps the best indication of Head Start's declining reputation comes from low-income parents themselves, who often choose not to place their children in Head Start.
This reminds me of DARE - a program that makes everybody feel good but is not measured against key performance indicators. For $7000, you could put your kid into Montesorri preschool. And if they don't perform, you could take your money elsewhere.
QUOTE
Should Head Start programs receive less Federal funding, more Federal funding, or stay about the same?
Head Start is one of the only Federal initiatives in education that has even a remote track record of success. My only real problem with asking HS to cut 2% of the budget is: why are kids the subject of budget cuts while at the same time Congress is wringing their hands over capital gains tax cuts?
If No Child Left Behind is a genuine focus for this administration, Head Start has to be a centerpiece of that strategy. While I agree with Carlitos' analysis that the money could theoretically be spent better in the private sector, the kids receiving this assistance don't have the $7222 to go to a Montessori private school. This is one of the few areas where I think vouchers has a significantly better argument.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.