Early Ed Watch

Thank you for identifying the responsibility of "what happens after Head Start" as a cause for the reputed drop off of educational benefits. Having volunteered at several local HS campuses in Berkeley, it was a privilege to see the children's excitement as they learned basic life skills such as expressing their wishes and feelings in words, how to behave with socially appropriate behavior during meals and naps, how to get along with peers, learning compassion with a disabled classmate,  and most important, their individual discoveries made during play.

But, please...why insist children all must learn to write their letters??? Singing songs like ABC is fine but children this age shouldn't be asked to sit in a formal circle and listen...those who like stories should have plenty of readers available, both others should be allowed to build an imaginary tower or space ship, explore bugs, stare at birds or clouds. Preschool should provide space and support for beautiful young minds as they self-direct their own learning. There's the rest of their lives to sit quiety without interrupting, doing what they "should", not what they enthuse to do..

I suspect much of the problem is clearly stated in your article that the fault may lie with 2007 legislation requiring HS  "to gear up for new quality-improvement requirements". I shudder to think what the Bush administration thinks of as "quality improvement".

As a mother, grandmother/guardian, and member of Alameda County's Early Childhood Planning Committee for 6 years. I know Head Start, based on best practices, can do wonders for our children if it is given an honest chance and real support.

In defending Head Start for all these years, we advocates, researchers, program administrators, etc. have found it difficult to confront the issue that in many cases the quality of Head Start classrooms are poor. I hope we have reached the point where the policy discussions will be about how to improve Head Start, rather than if it should be defunded.

you're all missing the point.  Poverty is not the issue.  Parenting is the issue.

Yes, good classroom experiences will help a kid that's ready and willing to learn.  But the foundation of education is the family, pushing and supporting their kids - that's where the willingness and a lot of the readiness comes from.  Throw all the money in the world at these schools, and if you don't have the family, the kids will eventually just shrug it off with a "so what?".

Parenting is the issue - well to be specific, the issue is parent involvement in children's education.  When Head Start and Early Head Start  programs work strongly and consistently on child development basics with parents of enrolled children, those parents will be more likely to continue to encourage their children throughout school - and that's a key to success in school.   When Head Start programs only work with the children,  no one is motivating the parents  to work with their children at home. 

With  many Head Start /Early Head Start programs now becoming full day childcare for working parents, those programs must think outside the box for ways they can work with parents.  The old ways of "come into the classroom and volunteer" no longer make sense.

Unfortunately, some full-day Head Start/Early Head Start programs do not require parents to be working or in school to receive this free quality childcare.  Those programs do a disservice to families by working only with the children in the classrooms instead of using a program option that combines working with parents and education for children.

Head Start and Early Head Start programs can be wonderful ! Let's encourage true parent involvement - focused on helping parents understand early literacy and math and work with their children to support educational goals.

I am afraid that the findings in the report will be misused and be a catalyst for school systems to take over the Early Childhood field.  School systems  already do a lousy job on K-12, please do not let them get their hands on our youngest and most vulnerable children.  Early Childhood programs work because they are parent friendly, and parents can CHOOSE the program they want (part time, full time, religious affiliate, montessori, head start, private or non profit).  Many of the staff in ECE programs do it for the love of the job.  They aren't , for the most part,unionized, and work very hard for their pay. The ECE teachers are a special group of professionals who are dedicated to the children, not their own wallets.  Head Start and other ECE programs work.  They give children the old kindergarten that was social skills based and allow them to be children.  Great ECE programs meet the needs of the individual child without constant testing and screening.  They produce happy children with the support of the family.  This is lost once the child enters the public school system.

Besides the points you raised, where's the research about the long-term success of these students?  Maybe after year one the students appear to be on equal footing, but can we really call it conclusive unless we follow that cohort through high school graduation?

Also, just as many, many schools are not providing the best quality education for their students, there are bound to be poor Head Start programs.  Using the logic of some naysayers, who will say we should just give up and cut all funding for Head Start, we should just give up on public schools, cut off funding and close them down.  It just doesn't make sense.

What rational person believes that providing high-quality education as early as possible isn't valuable for all children?  It's crazy that we still have to have this debate.

Where is there a detailed, serious discussion of the flaws that make the conclusions of this study unreliable? To quote from the article, there is only one short sentence to clearly indicate that the study itself is flawed.

"Craig T. Ramey, a professor of health studies and psychiatry at Georgetown University in Washington, said in an interview that researchers in the field of early-childhood education see Head Start as a "great idea," but added that "Head Start must hold its feet to the quality fire." Mr. Ramey questioned the quality not only of some Head Start programs, but of the impact study as well. He characterized it as an example of "poor scholarship and reporting of data."

Quality standards are a good thing. How about holding the researchers' feet to "the quality fire" as well?

To rush to judgment, not only making pronouncements, but also making funding decisions on the basis of a study that is seriously flawed, is dangerous nonsense.

I was disappointed in the article from Education Week titled "Head Start Study Finds Brief Learning Gains" in this week's Early Education in the News. It is true that the quality of Head start programs is uneven - that would be an intuitive and anecdotal finding. BUT how is it that everyone jumps on the bandwagon, criticizing Head Start without little critical examination of the study that is the most recent basis for comment? What is the reason that the data on which the federal impact study is based is not released?

"The federal government was supposed to have released data two years ago to scientists so they could analyze the information, he noted, but such data have not been released as part of the impact study. "

In reporting the positive findings there is no indication that the size and quality of a child's vocabulary is one of the most important predictors of later academic success. Rather, the vocabulary finding is mentioned almost dismissively.

I read the summary on the Impact of Head Start.  Basically the report compared Head Start to a control group of children from similiar backgrounds and found they were about equal when it came to educational benchmarks and at the end of first grade.  The study was pretty rigorously designed and there is a rather extensive technical report available on the DHHS website as well as other documents regarding the study.  The reason the report was delayed was political.  Head Start doesn't deliver on the promise.  The money that is being expended on Head Start programs would be better spent in giving each family an education voucher for preschool education of their choice.  That would eliminate most of the funds used for administering Head Start.  The fact that 40% of the Head Start teachers did not have either an AA or BA degree in ECE is a problem also.  Our economy cannot afford to waste money on a program for disadvantaged children that doesn't work.  Just get rid of the program -- Per the President, there are no sacred cows.

Because of the changes in educational requirements, many of these Head Start teachers are being pressured to earn their AAS degrees in Early Childhood Education or Child Development Technology.  They are being pressured by their center directors to take night classes and summer courses to earn their degrees before the 2013 deadline.  These women are quite often single parents, they are products of disfunctional homes, they live with abusive family members, they're poorly educated, they live in poverty, and they basically   live quiet lives of desperation while trying to hold down a full time job at Head Start.  The community colleges prey on these desperate women so they may enroll them in their AAS programs for ECE Technology or Child Development Technology.  The school arranges to provide  them with Pell Grants and supplimental financial aid.  What the women receive in return is basically a very nearly worthless degree.  The technical courses are bunk and the remedial academic courses aren't worth much more.  The women learn practically nothing though they now have a very valuable credential to add to their resume.  The AAS degree is their ticket to keeping their job with Head Start.

If the AAS degrees in Child Development and Early Childhood Education Technology are wothless, then how can we improve Head Start teacher education?  Is it time to make Pre-K4 Federally Mandated so that all Head Start Teachers must have B.S. or B.A. degrees and be certified???