To "Claudio" read the article again. They clearly stated that "a
2011 study by the federal government of its own Head Start pre-K program for
low-income kids showed strong initial gains, but those faded out by about third
grade, at which time students served by Head Start tested at about the same
level as their low-income peers who did not attend."All we have
learned from these studies is that kids who have parents who care about
education do better in the education system.If the effects are gone
by the 3rd grade, what was the point outside of free daycare for the poor?
If the long term problem is vocabulary development and language, why not offer
classes to the parents who will be influencing the long term experience of
raising the children. Then, both the parents and the child will benefit long
term. If children were required to speak up to a certain vocabulary level of
English before entering school it would help alleviate problems during the
education years. It would also put the responsibility of learning English on
the parents, where it belongs. A partnership is then formed between parent and
child to encourage learning.
In his state of the union "speech", Obama claimed he cut spending by
$1.2 trillion (totally untrue) but somehow that didn't produce all the
cataclysmic drama that he now claims the so called sequester will cause. Which
is it Mr. President, and why are you constantly lying to us? Why doesn't
the news media call you out on it? The only possible answer;why tell people the
truth when millions prefer believing your lies?
Claudio:In 2011, Time magazine's columnist Joe Klein called for
the elimination of Head Start, citing an internal report that the program is
costly and makes a negligible impact on children's well-being over time.
"You take the million or so poorest 3- and 4-year-old children and give them
a leg up on socialization and education by providing preschool for them; if it
works, it saves money in the long run by producing fewer criminals and welfare
recipients...it is now 45 years later. We spend more than $8 billion providing
Head Start to nearly 1.5 million children each year. And finally there is
indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the
Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not
work."Head Start program began in 1965, and poverty/crime has
risen.Before having children, people need to be financially,
responsible, and emotionally prepared.Head Start cannot make-up for
good parenting, and is a financial burden on society.
Worf, yes it has. The problem is that there's always a new crop of poor
people coming up without the opportunities afforded by Head Start or other
programs. Usually because the programs are not available due to conservative
resistance to anything that will help people without lining the pockets of
conservatives.JDL -- then whose responsibility is it to provide the
MEANS for education? There is only one factor that has been credited with
America's rise to preeminence in the world, and that is our free, national
public education system.
It is not governments responsibility to provide education but rather to protect
the right of people to be educated.
Dear Worf,Yes, it has.Sincerely,Every parent and
child who has benefited from the program.
What every study failed to measure and what every teacher will tell you is
critical is the followup in the home. Parents who are committed to helping
their children learn, read to them, help with homework and do simple school
supportive tasks have children who learn. Unfortunately, far too many parents
across the social strata abdicate their responsibilities and expect the school
to do it all. My motto while raising my famiy was "My children's
education is MY responsibility and the school is ONE of my resources."
How's the Head Start program working out? Has it decreased poverty?