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).

[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.