‘Head Start’: The $166 Billion Fed Ed Failure
But President Obama and Congress have already had a golden opportunity to show that they will heed their own scientific evidence, supporting what works and what is efficient: the D.C. private school voucher program. The latest Department of Education study revealed that after attending private schools for three years, voucher-receiving students were reading more than two grade levels ahead of the randomized control group who had remained in public schools. What’s more, the average voucher value was a mere $6,600, compared to D.C. per-pupil education spending of over $28,000.
What did Congress do to the program that has proven itself dramatically more effective and many times more efficient than D.C.’s public system? They decided to sunset its funding, effectively killing it. What did President Obama do to save it? Nothing. He let it die despite having previously said that “if there was any argument for vouchers it was, ‘Let’s see if the experiment works.’ And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what’s best for kids.”
Or not.
There are only two explanations for the contradiction between the president’s talk and the president’s walk on education: a lack of courage or a lack of integrity. Either he is afraid to stand up to the public school employee unions who despise educational choice and relentlessly demand more money for their members, or he never really cared “what’s best for kids” or intended to “eliminate programs that don’t work.”
Only the president himself knows which it is. Neither explanation is of much solace to the children and taxpayers who must live with his decisions … at least until the next election.
I know I’m getting older and my memory if failing but wasn’t it Obamba, or maybe it was the congress that just recently defunded a program for charter schools in Washington DC? You know, a school choice program for parents who want their children to actually receive an education and make a life for themselves, to give those children an opportunity sort of the same as the Obama children are receiving at their fancy private school. So it seems to me that Barry has had his opportunity to “step up” and not let programs that do work fail. Just more meaningless platitudes from our overworked and underpaid chief executive. We will be SO much better off when he’s been voted out of office.
I am curious as to why Head Start is failing so miserably.
I also think it would take considerable guts for any presidential aspirant to promise to shut it down. The vague “programs that don’t work and waste money” is much safer, but, as shown here, more abusable.
No. It’s simply another part of the communist takeover, under:
“17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.”
See the Congressional Record at: http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Well, I doubt seriously that Arch-Conservative attempts to shut down medicare, social security, veterans programs, health care reform and no child left behind will ever succeed. Millions have benefited from these programs and they are vital lifelines to the old and the sick and the very young innocents in our society. Even your new Senator from Mass. Senator Brown supports most (if not all) of these so even trying to portray them as evil and argue for ending them will not work. But good Luck with the effort… !
99.9% of all state bureau-rats are liberals.
99.9% of all contractors working under state grants from liberal bureau-rats are their liberal friends, family or friends.
“Studies show . . .” should always be read: “This is what we want you to believe, . . .”
Head Start is riddled with corruption at the street level anyway, but I’ll bet it does more good than harm, and the “studies” are lies to divert the money to hard-core radical left indoctrination programs.
“what about the children”
even if a waste of money …this administration is all about a waste of money …and they are using education to brainwash and indoctrinate so good luck with that.
“It’s time for President Obama to prove that he will “eliminate programs that don’t work” — and not let the ones that do work die.”
He already proved that was a lie when he eliminated the DC vouchers program for a little school doing better on every statistical front than their communist propaganda counterparts.
I still say Obama should give Tiger Woods a call, they are a natural twosome and company for each other as they travel around the country looking for different ways to F—up.
I’ve worked for Head Start as a substitute teacher. It’s useful for single mothers who have to work, but it’s institutional care. When I was there, one 4 year-old said, “I want my mommy,” and another little girl said, “I do too.” This is entirely natural for 4 year-old children. During nap time, you’ve got some 15 to 18 children to keep reasonably quiet. You have to tell them to stop talking and so on. It’s just like school in that sense, but they are only 4 years old.
They stayed in the same room all day except for recess when they went to an enclosed spot outside. They ate cafeteria food on cafeteria trays. Groups of children rotated between different “stations” – the block area, the arts and crafts area and so on. I found my two days there to be mildly depressing.
Needless to say, the wages paid to the teachers are not that high, so you’re not likely to get high-achieving types of women working in Head Start. I have to make the assumption that the children do not come from homes with many books. Playing with blocks and doing arts and crafts will not help you with algebra later on. It may be politically incorrect to say so, but the children who don’t do well in school later on have parents who are not interested in education. If you can change the homes, you can change the children, but that’s an entirely different topic.
The solution is to have policies that bolster the family, the community and the church (or temple or mosque). State care will always be a poor substitute for family and community.
You wrote: “There are only two explanations for the contradiction between the president’s talk and the president’s walk on education: a lack of courage or a lack of integrity”
Based on everything already known about Obama it really should be “…a lack of courage AND a lack of integrity”.
“It may be politically incorrect to say so, but the children who don’t do well in school later on have parents who are not interested in education. If you can change the homes, you can change the children, but that’s an entirely different topic.”
Its also a scam run by you liberals. The same article discusses voucher children outperforming equivalent public school children for less money, not more. Same community, less money, better programs not run by liberals. Your scam is the one run perpetually by liberals: “of course the program failed, it was under-funded, given us even more and everything will work just fine.”
We’ve known that Head Start doesn’t work for a long, long time. I remember my shock when the professor of one of my ed classes opened a lecture with the evidence. That was about 16 years ago, but Head Start is still with us. At that time he told us that Head Start is only effective when the mother or daycare provider is of marginal intelligence; otherwise, staying home with Mom or Dad is just as good from an educational standpoint (and in most cases, from a social and moral standpoint too).
If Congress really wants to help increase the educational outcomes of preschoolers, it would do better to encourage cottage industry (by, say, repealing laws CPSIA that erect barriers to it, and making it easier to employ someone) and fund family support centers that can lend out educational toys and conduct training classes for parents to teach them how to play lap games with their kids.
anyone have a link to original study
I take exception to the conclusion ‘Head start does not work’. This measures student after the education system has had them for 2 years. Could the conclusion just as likely be ‘Head start works, but the education system destroys its good works?’ This distiction is important because how we should respond is different. The first conclusion suggest that we a) defund head start, or b) find out how to make head start work. The second conclusion is suggest we reform how we educate in this country.
Does anyone have data on the ability of head start students entering kindergarden? That would give us some idea of which of these two likely conclusion we should assume.
Original study link gives an error – I wonder if it’s really technical difficulties with web server or (stupid) attempt at censorship/coverup?
In any case if you do a Google search on “20094050.pdf” you can easily find both full report (~200 pages) and executive summary (~20 pages).
Even if it could be proven conclusively that an opposite effect is occurring there would be no change toward ending the program.
We must understand the liberal enemy. Their intentions are not what they proclaim but an ulterior outcome concealed by their good intentions.
Their true intentions here are to establish as proven fact that the government has the undeniable right and legitimacy to impose their viewpoint from the earliest moment in every childs life.
It removes parental claim to shape thought and expression in their own child.
Utopia can only be achieved when everyone obeys the government.
These people are evil and to excuse them because their intentions seem good is to accept their godless Utopian schemes.
My mom has worked at head start for 15+ years. I think she’s definitely made an effect on the kids she’s taught, mainly because the majority of her kids are from low-income areas where they sometimes do not receive any education at all. From hearing her speak of it, I think the majority of the blame is on the people managing the local programs and failing to see what works and what does not work. My mom knows what works and what doesn’t, but getting money for those things that work as appose to the things that do not is a very difficult thing to do. My two cents.
Obama has done nothing to bring ethics and accountability to America. He has done nothing to improve conditions in the inner cities. The Obamanation administration has only one partner and that is the Unions. Not the citizens in general, but he is a man that rages and lives and speaks with an absence of reality. He targets and demeans people who actually are responsible for creating jobs. Most of America now knows what Obama is all about and it is now time that the citizens control Obama. Not him control us. This will be accomplished in November 2010.
We’ve known that Head Start is a failure for a very long time now. We also know we won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. Teachers say that many of the kids in the inner cities lack even the most basic skills. They don’t know how to tie their shoes or brush their teeth. They have no understanding of basic concepts like time. As we all know, this is a failure of parenting and the left knows it as well which is one of the reasons why they want the state to be a surrogate parent assuming virtual control of the child from near infancy (see Clinton, Hillary: It Takes a Village). For now, anyhow, they’re limited to programs like Head Start, so, like I said, we won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. While there is some benefit to the child, it’s basically a very expensive babysitting service.
mrboris:
I commend your mom for working to make a difference in childrens’ lives under difficult circumstances. However, I can’t help but conclude the program is one big expensive babysitting program offered by the feds to try to compensate for huge percentage of fatherless and parentless homes in the ghetto. Make these adults face their parental responsibilities and you eliminate the need for government programs like Head Start.
Most of the studies in past years suggested that the gains made in Head Start are not maintained. This is not because of what public school teachers do or do not do. It is because for many of these children, the lack of interest and the accompanying lack of language and experience stimulation does not start at home. When these children enter public school they enter an environment that perpetuates the lack of interest in education by being surrounded by other students just like them. Teachers try to struggle to create a new enthusiasm for learning and attempt unsuccessfully to get these students to formulate goals for the future requiring education. The change of a long established culture is at stake.
I have also read principals of these schools so the best job when through their energy and spirit, they reach out and engage as many of the mothers as possible.
I am a Head Start graduate. I have long suspected that the program does not have lasting effects. It simply cannot counteract the realities of growing up in an impoverished home, where there is rarely a father, and where lack of education and familial dysfunction are the rule, not the exception. One or two years of Head Start won’t make a lasting difference if there is not a fundamental change in the families from which its students come.
Of my Head Start classmates, I am the only one with a college education, and certainly the only one to obtain a professional degree. Of course, my father is a college graduate who lost his job during the recession of the early 1980s. I grew up in a stable home with no substance abuse, no domestic violence, parents who sought out opportunities for enrichment, and with the expectation that I would go to college. While money was tight, my home life was otherwise very similar to that of children from middle- and upper-class homes in terms of parental interaction and involvement. My success in life has nothing to do with Head Start, but with my parents and the life they created for their children.
Jessica I’ve taught 20+ yrs in Head Start.Many parents are interested in their kids education Some don’t have an education or know what to do.They push a lot of political correctness(Michael Jackson, other “home” cultures etc)instead of how to asimilate into society. Like your parents education was stressed- not clothes, being cute etc in my home.She was allowed to .play and get dirty. We attended libraries,museumes etc. She had a shopping list at three and helped find the food in the supermarket. A lot of it is working with your child constantly and many parents don’t want to be bothered. There is alot of wasted time in the curriculum (eating, napping)But mostly it’s about what is done at home.Most parents never volunteer in the class.A lot would rather be socialize, shop or find baby daddies I wonder if this happens with all the different cultures in Head Start or just some?
This all misses the point. Head start is taxpayer-funded daycare for two-income families. That is all it really does. It does also accomplish the statist goal of increasing the years of state control and thus a sort of sense of “ownership” of the children, and simultaneously lessening the sense of parental responsibility for the early childhood education of the children.
In this former homeschooling father’s opinion, if a family intends to let the state educate their child, they should at least send the child to school on day one already knowing ABCs, numbers, proper English, and as much else as the child can grasp.
And the school should be ready with advanced and effective curriculum for those kids who are prepared. Boring a bright child is the very worst, but all too common educational malpractice.
“Well, I doubt seriously that Arch-Conservative attempts to shut down medicare, social security, veterans programs, health care reform and no child left behind will ever succeed. Millions have benefited from these programs and they are vital lifelines to the old and the sick and the very young innocents in our society. Even your new Senator from Mass. Senator Brown supports most (if not all) of these so even trying to portray them as evil and argue for ending them will not work. But good Luck with the effort… !”
So…in essence it is important to keep people hooked to the government from cradle to grave? And “benefited” is usually a word that someone who has never been under the thumbs of these programs use.
I to am a graduate of Head Start and let me state definitively that there is no correlation between Head Start and where you end up 34 years later. I graduated from college, but so did other people I went to school with who didn’t go to Headstart. Also, my children had about as much education as a kid in Headstart by just watching Nick Jr. Headstart is just a government boondoggle that would not be missed if it were ended yesterday.
4. Why would conservatives want to shut down veteran’s programs? Part of the conservative platform is a strong national defense, and you can’t have a strong national defense without good service members. You don’t get good service members without promising them that they and their families will be taken care of as compensation for their service. One of the best recruiting tools we have is the GI Bill, which allows young men and women just out of high school who can’t afford to go to college or aren’t prepared for college to serve in the military for four years or more and then get a free ride to any State university, or have that money credited to another institution’s tuition. We don’t mind paying taxes to fund the military and pay our debts; we do have a problem with spending money to support people who haven’t paid their dues. I’m all for charity, but it’s not charity if it’s forced.
Head Start, let’s call it what it is. A day care center, not an ‘early education institution’ on the public dime. A failed program for low income, low skilled people.
We must not confuse pocketbook poverty with the problems of Head Start students to make significant gains. The failure is indicative of a poverty of skills, which has little to do with money. Although my mother and her sisters all shared a very cramped room and went without shoes in the summers, and often had clothed that were hand-me-downs three times over, they did have two literate parents, who planted a garden in their city yard to feed them and saved the money to make sure that they could all go to college. This story is not unusual; it’s the story of many American families. Many of the people we now call poor have plenty of money, but it’s money doled out and not earned and requires nothing of the recipient. We are essentially rewarding failing behaviors.
I wonder how the high school graduation rate of Head Start kids compares to kids from the same neighborhoods who didn’t get Head Start.
“Why would conservatives want to shut down veteran’s programs?”
You obviously have never been to a VA hospital. Not all of them are Walter Reid (and the one that is Walter Reid was the subject of a giant WaPo expose in 2007). Also, several of those same vets end up on welfare via SSI. I am all for taking care of our vets, but our pols are not really all that interested. If they were they would realize that vets are suffering good services that should be given to them because the pols also want to give to the poor, the elderly, children, small businesses, big businesses, invest in start-up technologies, give foreign aid, etc.
May I play Devils Advocate for a moment.
While Head Start apparently shows no “increase” in cognitive abilities by the first grade, can it be shown to at least keep the kids at par with their non Head Start peers?
My understanding is, the plan is (intended?) for recipients who are more or less “at risk kids” (from sub-par home life/stability/economics etc)who would otherwise fall behind at the very beginning of their “school career” (on the basics, like numbers, letters, basic reading, etc)the fear being, once behind at such an early stage, they will be discouraged, and never “catch up”.
I had some early (undiagnosed) mild dyslexia in grade school the late 60′s early’70′s. Believe me, as a child who got behind day one chasing a “freight train” that NEVER stops building upon the last lesson/concept you stumbled trying to grasp, it is a terrifying, esteem DESTROYING cycle that can harm you in ways far beyond the classroom. Despite an Engineering Degree and sucessful Military Service in the most demanding programs, I still rememember the SHAME of feeling “stupid” as a child, and how close I came to giving up.
Therefore, I dont dispute the study that measures no “achievement better than X..” but my question is, what WAS the expectation? If we can prove they are “average” now, when without “intevention” it was a sure thing they would be “lost”, that MIGHT NOT BE A COMPLETE FAILURE.
I am all for facts and pragmatism. If we can prove Head Start doesnt GET THEM TO PAR with their peers, then by all means scrap it. Buy we need to decide what the objective was/is, (par or above?)
From what I read in this article, I’m not sure the study addresses that question
Headstart is of course one of an entire category of failed 1960′s “Great Society” programs that while based on noble intentions, have actually worsened the conditions they sought to address. The most thorough and penetrating assessments of the failed legacy of the Federal Government’s attempt to fix social problems can be found in Charles Murray’s 1984 classic “Losing Ground.” It’s more valid today than ever.
Whether the crisis is Education, poverty, housing; if the Federal government is doing its normal top-down, command and control mode of “fixing” things you can be assured the results are not only disastrous but costly in ways we are only now comprehending.
To Root “83:
You’ve misunderstood. The study is comparing students that are as similar as possible except for one group having been through Head Start and one group having not. It’s “at risk kids” being compared to “at risk kids”.
From plenty of other studies we already know that the “at risk kids” are going to do worse than kids with two parents at home or kids with parents who seem to be more engaged or kids with parents that have college degrees or any number of other variables that are known to be significant. All of these things are more or less being taken into account.
The bottom line is that after two years the kids going through “Head Start” aren’t doing any better than other kids with exactly the same background who aren’t going through “Head Start.”
First let me say that publishing this crap without substantiating your so called evidence with hard numbers from the so called studies is poor journalism and spreading your own opinion as if it were fact. The truth is that I know a great deal about Head Start and the program was never created to offer substantial cognitive development. It was created to offer and structured environment with a nutritional program and socialization to very low income families. If has only recently added a cognitive component that teaches significant reading and math skills. If the same study is done in 10 years you will see the cognitive benefits. Also, the other aspect of the program not mentioned is the community service component. Many of our parents have gone on to work for Head Start and further their education, thereby giving their children a better quality of life. Next time you decide to trash a government funded program, check all your facts.
“…I know a great deal about Head Start and the program was never created to offer substantial cognitive development. It was created to offer and structured environment with a nutritional program and socialization to very low income families.”-Beth (8:38 pm)
Yeah, sure Beth. And it’s called “Head Start” for what reason, then?
America was a success in a world still unable to achieve prosperity from freedom. A psychological tradition for prosperity exists, cited in Save Pebble Droppers & Prosperity on Amazon and claysamerica.com. It demonstrates many Tea Party justifications for those new to politics who want to apply the brakes to Obama’s headlong rush to European Marxism and bigger government. The tradition of individual freedom resists the kind of centralizing power-grab we are experiencing today. Claysamerica.com
Think about the evidence and the conclusion presented here.
Evidence: Head Start children perform at roughly the same level as other children after two years in primary education. That is, Head Start children do not have a lasting sustained advantage over non-Head Start children.
Conclusion: Head Start is a miserable failure.
Question: Was Head Start really intended to give children a permanent advantage? Is that how we should be measuring whether it is effective?
No. Head Start was intended to give children who come from low-income and socially disadvantage backgrounds a “Head Start” to make up for the lack of educational and social opportunities afforded to middle class (and higher) children. That same study showed that for subgroups of children who were academically at risk, Head Start was more effective in improving cognitive skills and academic performance — which is exactly what Head Start was intended to do.
So, if Head Start is doing exactly what it is intended to do, then ask yourself why this article so drastically misrepresents the results of the report. Now ask yourself another question: What would this article by the Cato Institute say if it were shown that Head Start gave low-income children a permanent sustained advantage over middle class children? Clearly, it would decry the “liberal” system that is destroying the middle class by giving low-income children a permanent advantage over others.
Cato is a propaganda arm of the reactionary right. They are known for dissemblance and mendacity. Stop letting them think for you and think for yourself instead.
The Head Start/Charter School choices made by Congress is so typical of government. If it’s dead (Head Start) subsidize it; if it’s alive, tax it (Charter Schools, which are in effect being taxed out of existence). Head Start also exemplifies what’s wrong with government programs. In the words of Ronald Reagan (I believe): The closest thing to eternal life is a government program. My amendment to that would be: the closest thing is a useless government program.
adnerb, Thanks for your comment. Right on!!! I am from the opposite end of the spectrum…we homeschooled our kids, 3 sons now ranging from 25 to 30 years old.
The warehousing of kids is heartbreaking! Honest research and common sense agree that the best place for small children to be is at home with Mom (or a family “Mom” substitute, like Grandma!) The best thing a child can do for emotional health as well as mental development is to spend the day talking with, “helping”, and being physically cuddled (and disciplined) by… Mom!
A truly sad result of the Obama fiscal & regulatory policies is the increased cost of living which forces many mothers out of the home, putting children into daycare or programs like Headstart. A myth the left likes to put forward is that Headstart, etc., is a better place for children than their own homes. I used to hear that one a lot! Bull!!!
I often took my kids to the swimming pool at the same time as a daycare group. Two adorable little girls, about 4 years old, ALWAYS walked holding hands, clutching each other. They never let go. They just paced. The young girls supervising the kids sat and talked to each other, rarely even glancing at the kids. Those images break my heart to this day. I used to wonder if their mothers had any idea.
School choices of all types need to be encouraged! One size does not fit all, but Headstart is a size that fits pretty much no one! I, for one, to quote Obama, “want my money back!”
Maybe I missed it, but where is the link to the Health and Human Services study? The hint to search for 20094050.pdf takes you to the report on the Voucher program. Maybe because I’m from the “Show Me” state but I would like to see the Human Services report.
4. Poor Citizen:
Well, I doubt seriously that Arch-Conservative attempts to shut down medicare, social security, veterans programs, health care reform and no child left behind will ever succeed. Millions have benefited from these programs and they are vital lifelines to the old and the sick and the very young innocents in our society. Even your new Senator from Mass. Senator Brown supports most (if not all) of these so even trying to portray them as evil and argue for ending them will not work. But good Luck with the effort… !
Oooooo….Arch-Conservative!…….ooooooo, scary kids!
Allright, I have lurked through most of the deluded touchy-feely crapola you’ve commented in the last year or so, but this is just too rich.
Clue #1, and this one’s free, It’s Dr. Utopia and the progressives in congress that want to cut Medicare funding.
Social Security is a program Conservatives by and large support. Why? Because we PAY INTO IT. It is not a give away. Except to those who haven’t payed into it. Due to progressives using Social Security as a blanket entitlement, it faces underfunding very soon. What Conservatives want is to reform SS to the original, sustainable, intent.
Veterans Programs. Who is wanting to do away with Veteran’s programs? I seem to remember your “lightbringer” wanting to make Veterans pay for their own health care. Remember that? It was less than a year ago. It was under Clinton that Veterans were required to go to the TriCare system, that we pay into. TriCare is, by and large, a sweet deal compared to private sector health insurance, but that was not what I contracted for when I originally enlisted.
Health Care Reform. Well, just look around you and see how the majority does not support a government take over of health care. Arch Conservatives, every one, huh? Wrong. Use your head for something other than a hat rack and look at the demographics of the Massachusetts election. No tort reform, no programs to control costs, secret back room deals, lack of portable insurance, fines for non-compliance, punitive taxation on small business that can not survive that cost, etc, etc……..what, so we can emulate the shaky systems that are bleeding Europe dry. And tell me, why would you fine somebody for something they cannot afford in the first place. No thanks. And don’t tell us there will not be rationing, we know better.
No Child Left Behind. Wasn’t that a signature program of the Patron Saint of Wet Oldsmobiles? Thought so.
Grow up.
Have you heard about all the money for the Head Start Birth to 3 program? Millions of dollars of stimulus money is now being funneled into new buildings, furnishings, supplies, staff, etc. A new facility that will be on the campus of a small WV High School(seven known high school girls are pregnant and can apply to enroll their child in the new program-prenatal info is available and home vists will be made for girls) The new facility will house up to eight infants. There will also be home visits and socialization for up to 32 older toddlers up to 3 years old. Three-year olds can now ride buses to one day a week “school”. Our great grandchildren will be paying for this tax monster along with all the other junk that is going on.
One big problem with Head Start is that they haven’t required their teachers to have college degrees. They did not require applicants to have an AAS or BS degree in Early Childhood Education or Child Development. Only a few short years ago, Head Start teachers and teaching assistants were only required to have a high school diploma or GED plus some “childcare” experience. Now Head Start is trying to hire women who have an associates degree in a child development related area or they’re close to graduating with an AAS. If Head Start had required their teachers to be educationally qualified five-ten-fifteen years ago, then MAYBE this federally funded preschool program would have had a higher success rate. Without qualified teaching staff, Head Start is nothing more than a tax payer funded day care.
I have been working at Head Start for a couple of years as a teacher’s assistant. Starting this year, teachers and TAs are now REQUIRED to have a two year or four year degree (18 credit hours in early childhood education) and be certified with a CDA (In my state anyway. Qualifications may vary from state to state). The rate of pay depends on how long an employee works for Head Start and not by education and experience. There are people I work with that have relative four year degrees (some are even certified/licensed early childhood education teachers), and still make the same as a substitute TA (about $8/hr). I don’t see the point of earning a four year degree and getting paid less than a high school dropout working at Wal-Mart. Okay, I do see the point (better educated staff for the kids), but Head Start is nothing but a federal funded daycare (not a real school).
I am perfectly aware that Head Start is a daycare. I will also admit that many of the teachers are not highly educated (only HS/GED education). I know several teachers that lack basic grammar and spelling skills and so many other common sense things (too many to list that it’s actually sad). I know I’m not the best at writing, but at the very least I know the difference between “your”, “you’re”, “there”, and “their”, and I know that “grammer” and “bulliten” are spelled wrong. My writing is terrible, but image a few teachers and TAs with writing twenty times worst than mine.
To be honest, besides teaching kids their ABC’s, 123′s, how to write their names, and how to say “please” and “thank you”, there really isn’t much learning going on. It’s roughly ten or so minutes of learning and the rest is either play time or meal time.
The only reasons I see Head Start as somewhat useful is that at very least the kids get a couple of free meals, free health screenings, and a safe place to play and to socialize. Parents save money on daycare and on meals, and they can work, job train, or search for work. That’s it. There’s nothing liberal, conservative, independent, or whatever craziness you people will try to label me or Head Start. It is what it is; combined government waste and a welfare blessing.
I do enjoy my job and I just wanted to tell the truth on what’s going on inside Head Start. How many people can say they get paid to play with kids, finger paint, play with putty, and read pop up books all day?
I meant “worse” not “worst”. No matter how many times I spell check and reread my posts, I always miss a few. Oh well….
I guess I’m just human.
Head Start hires teachers without degrees 12 units and a few have more, I know that is supposed to change?(right?) most run with high staff with the staff making very very low wages a few hours a day and a few days a week with summers off, closed for 2 weeks at Christmas closed for a week at Easter, all holidays, and the pay is so low for staff they themselves qualify for Head Start and welfare they are there own clients, look up how many staff use Head Start services, the past parent thing is a joke, self fulling , be a child or parent here and we will hire you it is in the preform standards. wow. I have seen many classrooms, a teacher, assistance teacher , another teacher aid, cook, bus driver, janitor, and 5 students, nuts. I would like to say it is rare, not so, It is funded by enrollment not attendance, what incentive do they have to have a full classroom. what a waste