Head Start

[Wneglia]

Waste of Money?

HHS Report

[Wneglia]

The "Key Findings" (pdf page 17, report page xvi) and "Conclusions" (pdf page 185, report page 145) are not described in their entirety by Lindsey M. Burke of the Heritage Foundation in this Faux Noise article, and there is no stated support for her, "It needs to be put on the chopping block." Anyone surprised?

...Burke holds a bachelor's degree in politics from Hollins University in Roanoke, Va., and a master of teaching degree in foreign language education from the University of Virginia. Before joining Heritage in 2008 as a research assistant, she taught high school French...

Hmmm. Why not find a less biased and more scholarly analysis, Wneglia?

I'm sure Head Start can be improved, but are you really joining her in calling for it's elimination?

Perhaps all public educations programs should be funded like the coming P4P programs in medicine

[O Really]

I didn't have sufficient time/interest to schlep through the entire document. I did read enough of each to see that the Faux article was somewhat ummm, fuzzy with the accuracy of what was said in the HHS report. In any rate, did the study offer any comparison between Headstart and any other pre-school program? Is the article really saying that kids are better off with no program than with Headstart? I don't know much about Headstart, but it seems a stretch that a pre-school program reported to have measurably positive effects at the pre-school level could somehow turn into a negative by third grade.

I have no problem with pay for performance schemes if:
1. The performance can be objectively and accurately measured;
2. The level of performance is within the actual control of the performer;
3. The conditions under which the work is done are equivalent across all those being measured.

There's a lot missing when you start talking about teachers.

[Boatrocker]

I didn't have sufficient time/interest to schlep through the entire document. I did read enough of each to see that the Faux article was somewhat ummm, fuzzy with the accuracy of what was said in the HHS report. In any rate, did the study offer any comparison between Headstart and any other pre-school program? Is the article really saying that kids are better off with no program than with Headstart? I don't know much about Headstart, but it seems a stretch that a pre-school program reported to have measurably positive effects at the pre-school level could somehow turn into a negative by third grade.

I have no problem with pay for performance schemes if:
1. The performance can be objectively and accurately measured;
2. The level of performance is within the actual control of the performer;
3. The conditions under which the work is done are equivalent across all those being measured.

There's a lot missing when you start talking about teachers.

4. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. That is, punish the kids while you're trying to punish an entire school or district.

[O Really]

How does Head Start differ from any other pre-school program, except for the demographics of the participants?

[O Really]

Somewhat different but related perspective here... http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... picks=true

[O Really]

Yeah, it looks like from the findings part of the Executive Summary that the program had a positive effect while the kids attended, but the effects weren't continued two or more years hence. Does a third-grader even remember being in pre-school?