Head Start does not fulfill its mandate, according to two recent congressional studies.
Here is Head Start's mission statement:…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
TV Review: Game of Thrones - "The Bear and the Maiden Fair"
by Writergirl2009
on May 17, 2013
Music Review: I Can Lick Any Sonofabitch In The House - Mayberry
by Richard Marcus
on May 14, 2013
DVD Review: The Rolling Stones - Crossfire Hurricane
by Wesley Britton
on May 16, 2013
Manga Review: Fullmetal Alchemist Volume Six by Hiromu Arakawa
by Lesley Aeschliman
on May 16, 2013
Recent Politics Features
blogcritics lists for May 17, 2013
fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide
- House Ways and Means Committee Investigating 501 (c) (4) Tax Issues by John Lake
- David Beckham Retiring – Writes His Own Happy Bending by Victor Lana
- Running Shoe Review: Brooks PureFlow 2 by Joseph Arellano
- Music Review: VALIS - Minds Through Space and Time [Colored Vinyl Edition] by Greg Barbrick
- Book Review: Is College Worth It? by William J. Bennett and David Wilezol by Jack Goodstein
fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide
- Jesse, That's good to know. Got to have my fill of Rum/Belle (with a /... by WML
- I seem to have published this before it was quite ready. This from Forbes: ... by John Lake
- The Issue of tax exempt private foundations is discussed in Section... by John Lake view more fresh comments
most comments Most comments in 24hrs
- Should Representatives Vote the People's Will or Their Judgment? by John Lake (7 comments)
- The Anarchist's Dilemma: an Interlude by Roger Nowosielski (4 comments)
- Unnecessary Pap Smears by bookofjoe (3 comments)
- TV Review: Supernatural - "Sacrifice" by Gerry Weaver (3 comments)
- House Ways and Means Committee Investigating 501 (c) (4) Tax Issues by John Lake (3 comments)
top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April
- Dr Joseph S Maresca (28 articles)
- Jack Goodstein (17 articles)
- Lesley Aeschliman (16 articles)
- Jon Sobel (15 articles)
- Cinenerd (14 articles)
top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs
- Doug Hunter (3 comments)
- Glenn Contrarian (3 comments)
- John Lake (3 comments)
- Dr Dreadful (2 comments)
- troll (2 comments)
Article comments
26 - Jet Gardner
Sorry "not" I read your article but missed the point.
27 - Igor
Anecdotal evidence is powerful when it refutes a universal.
28 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comments # 24 & # 25, Jet, I also used the word "the" in my article. Does that constitute plagiarism as well? After all, "the" has been used by others before me.
Re: comments # 22 & # 23, John and clav, thank you.
29 - Jet Gardner
The tragic thing is he's serious
30 - Jet Gardner
Hmmmmm...
...the 2012 study has a publication date of October 2012, but it was not released until after the November 2012 election. Was that done so Democrats could accuse Republicans of not caring about children, when the opposite was actually true?
vs
Its published date is October 2012, but it wasn't released until after Obama's election, presumably so Democratic campaigns could safely accuse Republicans of not caring about children and ignore the actual results of the programs they favor.
By god you DID copy the word "the"...
Comment 24 didn't reflect that... my mistake.
31 - clav
Anecdotal evidence is powerful when it refutes a universal.
Anecdotal "evidence" isn't evidence at all; it's someone's (in this case, yours) story about something, and is unverifiable, so it refutes (or proves) nothing.
32 - Igor
One can quibble the veracity of an anecdote, but it remains true that a negative instantiation refutes a generalization.
I have no way to prove the veracity of my anecdote, and it really doesn't matter since anyone can imagine that someone somewhere could advance such an anecdote.
33 - Igor
(part 2 to circumvent the censor)
...
Such is the burden of advancing a generalization: it must withstand all instances.
Anyway, from my experience headstart has worked well. I've seen kids, especially disadvantaged kids, who benefited greatly from headstart.
There is a lust for knowledge in kids. They are, as one author said "The Scientist In The Cradle". The sooner that lust is satisfied, the greater the enthusiasm for learning, and the greater the advancement and achievement.
Also, psychometric tests show that children are VERY powerfully influenced in the first 3 to 6 years. So, it seems to me, that a good Headstart program will improve their lives and improve our society.
It's a mistake to make a political football out of something so important.
34 - Igor
Hey, it worked! I just split the offending comment!
35 - Baronius
Igor - It's been a while since I got blocked, but that trick has worked for me too.
36 - Jet Gardner
So Clavos, you're still saying the key sentence/point warren employed to sum up his article, shown in #30, does NOT prove a blatant similarity and wasn't "reused?"
Perhaps you'd like to borrow a pair of reading glasses?
37 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comments # 15, allow me to be VERY specific regarding the article Glenn cited in comment # 1: terms such as "some evidence," "only a few statistically significant differences," "impact" (with no definition), "moderate evidence," and "suggestive evidence" are (at best) weazel words that cast doubt upon the validity (notice that I did not say "veracity") of the ENTIRE study, and makes a reader ask two questions. WHY were weazel words used, other than for obfuscation? WHO conducted the study?
Re: comments # 24 and # 25 (and others), Jet, try as you may, you cannot change the subject of this thread. Did you somehow miss comments # 22 and # 23? All you are doing is making yourself look foolish. Did you go to the "James Carvill" school of commentary formulation? BC readers can clearly see what you are trying to do. I think you reached the pinnacle of absurdity when you said, "By god you DID copy the word "the"..."
38 - Jet Gardner
Warren I refer you back to #17 in you ridiculous denial and subterfuge
39 - Not the liberal actor
And let's not forget this little gem that "Dear Leader" said during the third presidential debate in 2008: "... we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn’t help seniors get better. It’s a giveaway. I want to go through the federal budget line by line, programs that don’t work." Well, TWO studies by HHS have confirmed that Head Start doesn't work, yet it continues to receive taxpayer dollars. This is another example of "say anything to get elected' Obama lying.
Jet, I hate to disappoint you, but Obama actually said that. Notice also that Obama used the word "the." Is he guilty of plagiarism as well?
40 - Dr Dreadful
This gets more ridiculous by the moment.
terms such as "some evidence," "only a few statistically significant differences," "impact" (with no definition), "moderate evidence," and "suggestive evidence" are (at best) weazel words that cast doubt upon the validity (notice that I did not say "veracity") of the ENTIRE study
Again, Warren, this is the very same study you cited in your article. Therefore, if the validity of the ENTIRE study [your emphasis] is in question, so is your own argument.
and makes a reader ask two questions. WHY were weazel words used, other than for obfuscation? WHO conducted the study?
Coming from someone who claims to have a PhD in statistics, your perplexity regarding these questions is remarkable.
41 - Jet Gardner
and telling
42 - Cindy
These were studies, not someone's opinions.
Indeed, they are studies where someone's opinion determines what counts as development for children.
You can have your culture and eat it too, imo. :-)
43 - Christopher Rose
It's a toss up as to which is the more depressing, the pathetic state of contemporary US political dialogue or the equally parlous state of the discussion of and commentary on US politics.
This article seems to shed interesting and informative light on both processes...
44 - Doug Hunter
Interesting results. I'd be shocked if taking kids away from ignorant, poor people and sticking them under the influence of a college educated individual didn't have some positive benefits as far as preparing to live in a world created by college educated individuals goes. As troll pointed out, it's also good babysitting.
45 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 40, Doc, I know your attention span is rather short, so try to focus on this comment. You say, "Again, Warren, this is the very same study you cited in your article. Therefore, if the validity of the ENTIRE study [your emphasis] is in question, so is your own argument." Yes, Doc, you are correct; I did cite the HHS study. But (and here is where it will get tricky for you) I also showed how the report was full of weazel words and questioned its validity. So now you will, without using tortured logic, explain how my conclusion is invalid - if you can.
I say, "... and makes a reader ask two questions. WHY were weazel words used, other than for obfuscation? WHO conducted the study?"
You retort: "Coming from someone who claims to have a PhD in statistics, your perplexity regarding these questions is remarkable." Come on, Doc. Is that the best you can do? No analysis of the questions I posed? I said that the "study" reader, when seeing the weazel words, will, if he/she has an ounce of objectivity, ask those two questions. And in what subject is your PhD? .
46 - Jet Gardner
aaaaannnnnnd we/re back to #17
47 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, Doc, you are correct; I did cite the HHS study. But (and here is where it will get tricky for you) I also showed how the report was full of weazel words and questioned its validity. So now you will, without using tortured logic, explain how my conclusion is invalid - if you can.
This surreal line of "argument" is rather like the following hypothetical exchange:
Warren: So you claim you have a cat. I see no cat. Prove to me that you have a cat.
Doc [picking up cat]: Here. Here's my cat.
Warren: I see no cat. Prove to me that you have a cat.
In other words, Warren, to borrow a favourite "debate tactic" of yours, if you don't want to see where your logic is defective, then nothing I can say is going to persuade you...
You retort: "Coming from someone who claims to have a PhD in statistics, your perplexity regarding these questions is remarkable." Come on, Doc. Is that the best you can do? No analysis of the questions I posed?
I felt it was remarkable because you claim to be a statistician by training and many of what you call "weasel words" are in fact statistical terms. For instance, a statistician, summarizing his findings for a non-stats geek audience, is going to be very careful about the words he uses. If evidence is correlative but not strong or not complete, then he might say that there is "some evidence" or "suggestive evidence" for a certain proposition. And again, I'm sure you know what statistical significance is, so I won't bother explaining to you why the report's authors might talk about "only a few statistically significant differences".
In short, a report that acknowledges its own weak points possesses integrity rather than, as you affirm, the contrary. It's certainly no reason to dismiss the whole thing (especially while trying to have it both ways by using the very report you have just dismissed to support your own argument).
I said that the "study" reader, when seeing the weazel words, will, if he/she has an ounce of objectivity, ask those two questions.
Warren, you've yet to demonstrate that you possess even a smidgen of objectivity, so you'll forgive me if I fail to take that statement seriously.
And in what subject is your PhD?
Why do I have to have a PhD?
48 - Jet Gardner
Warren-you still haven't answered.
Warren's Summation paragraph:
"...the 2012 study has a publication date of October 2012, but it was not released until after the November 2012 election. Was that done so Democrats could accuse Republicans of not caring about children, when the opposite was actually true?"
HotAir's paragraph:
Its published date is October 2012, but it wasn't released until after Obama's election, presumably so Democratic campaigns could safely accuse Republicans of not caring about children and ignore the actual results of the programs they favor.
How can you tell if Warren's been at his computer?
There's White-out formula all over the screen
49 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
What's wrong with paying out the money to the school systems for pre-kindergarten
programs throughout this country. Just put the money directly into the classroom.
My experience in teaching has shown that children need to set boundaries from an
early age so that they can do things like assigned homework and concentrated study.
The pre-kindergarten programs should emphasize the role of the student, as well as
the duties and responsibilities in order to succeed later on in school. Children
should be introduced to libraries where they can have guided reading sessions and
learn how to use the catalog systems. A good number of students simply do not read
books at all and this is the reason for problems throughout their academic career.
We should be putting money and resources in methodologies for reading, as well
as comprehension and critical thinking skills. In addition, students who come to
the system as "English as a Second Language" should have more immersion in
English so that they do not fall behind later on in the standardized testing
throughout the system. If necessary, children should have considerable instruction
in at least two languages. Later on, they can get credit for a second language in
their high school studies. This way- no time or effort would be lost. It's important
to correct the situation whereby children are not fluent in any language.
50 - Baronius
Actually, Warren, Dread makes a great point. If a statistician is faulting a report for failing to use statistics, or for misrepresenting them, that's understandable. But you seem to be complaining about the words in the report. That's weird. I have to ask, did you read the report, or was this article based on coverage of the report? If the latter, don't you consider it an obligation to review the report yourself, particularly with regard to the statistics? I would feel that obligation before complaining about a report's weaseliness, and I'm not a statistician.
51 - Baronius
As I was saying 22 hours ago, Warren, Dread makes a good point. I have to wonder if your article reflects the thinking of a statistician - and if not, whether that means you relied too much on secondary sources or your writer's bio is false. This would be a really good time for you to explain yourself and improve your credibility. If I'm looking at this thread in another 22 hours and you haven't responded, what am I supposed to make of that, except that the accusations that have been made against you are justified?
52 - El Bicho
Jet's comparison with Warren's work and HotAir already make clear what you should make of it. He tries to "weazel" out of it, but those lines are too similar to be coincidence, especially with someone of his track record
53 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 47, Doc, and comments # 50 and # 51, Baronius, I NEVER said the HHS report cited by Glenn was incorrect. I just pointed out that it was full of weazel words. If the HHS study findings were so supportive of the effectiveness of Head Start, then WHY did HHS include them? Weazel words make readers suspect that the entire study is rather self-serving, and must be read with a jaundiced eye. Otherwise, why were they included? Bottom line: would YOU place an $8 billion bet on a horse if I told you that there was "some evidence" or "suggestive evidence" that it would win the next race? That's what this country has done since 1965. And, that's what Obama, despite his deficit cutting rhetoric, continues to do.
Nothing is ever "proven" with statistics, or even a study. The results are only "suggestions" or "indications" as to what is really happening. The "proof" is simply an interpretation of the results. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon your perspective, HHS interprets its (self-serving?) study as "Head Start is effective." And, hence, wants to have its funding continued. Is Head Start effective? We'll never know for certain. But, I must ask, "If the HHS study findings were so supportive, then WHY did HHS include weazel words?"
54 - Dr Dreadful
I NEVER said the HHS report cited by Glenn was incorrect.
Warren: YOU cited the report before Glenn did. It amazes me that you still don't seem to have realized this yet despite I and other commenters having pointed it out at least five or six times.
For your sake it's better that you don't think the report is incorrect, since half of your split personality seems to be relying heavily on it not being incorrect in order that it should support your argument that Head Start doesn't work.
I just pointed out that it was full of weazel words.
As I already pointed out to you, they are not weasel words but descriptors of the relative strength of the study's findings. They're no different to the terminology used in any other statistical report I've read.
They would be weasel words if they existed in isolation, with nothing to support them. In that case there would be something to your contention that there is an intent to mislead. In reality, however, the phrases refer to the actual statistical findings in the actual report, which are accessible to everybody and which you are more than welcome to read for yourself. Here it is.
If you are a statistician of course you know this perfectly well. I was tempted to wonder what idiot gave you a PhD, but actually I don't doubt that you have one. Rather, in your case Political Hack Warren invariably overrides Objective Academic Warren.
Bottom line: would YOU place an $8 billion bet on a horse if I told you that there was "some evidence" or "suggestive evidence" that it would win the next race?
That may be the worst analogy I've ever seen. Head Start isn't a one-off bet, it's an investment. Now, if you had an (unusually long-lived and virile!) horse and told me there was suggestive evidence that it was going to win the majority of its races over the course of a 47-year career, then yes, I might well be persuaded to place an $8bn accumulator bet.
HHS interprets its (self-serving?) study as "Head Start is effective." And, hence, wants to have its funding continued.
Perhaps you'd care to point me to the page in the report on which the authors link the results of the study with a request for a continuation of funding.
55 - Baronius
Dread, I'm so bored with this that I'm not even bothering to look up-thread to make sure of it, but I think Warren cited two different reports - maybe Congressional - rather than the HHS reports.
56 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 54, Doc, LMAO! I ask again, "In what subject is your PhD?" What gives you credibility to assess whether weazel words have meaning or not, or even what they mean? And, now you will provide a list of scholarly journals (or colleagues) for which you have read studies. You say, "That may be the worst analogy I've ever seen. Head Start isn't a one-off bet, it's an investment." So, your interpretation of the HHS study is that Head Start is an investment. Upon what, other than your opinion, is your interpretation based? Is it the "some evidence" or "suggestive evidence" offered in the HHS report that supports your "investment" statement?
"There is none so blind as he who will not see."
And, did you somehow miss Glenn's comment #1?
I'm getting like Baronius - this is getting quite tiresome.
57 - Jet Gardner
Forgive me Winston...
Warren stumbled over the truth once...
...fortunately he was able to get up, dust himself off, and scurry away before anyone noticed.
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE ARGUING WITH SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT HIMSELF???
You have no hope of changing his mind (what there is of it) so why are you bothering????
58 - El Bicho
does HeadStart to teach kids how to spell "weasel" properly?
59 - Jet Gardner
He probably saw it spelled that way in another article and copied it.
60 - Dr Dreadful
Failing to acknowledge that you haven't got a leg to stand on, Warren, you resort to ad hominem. Sad but predictable.
What gives you credibility to assess whether weazel words have meaning or not, or even what they mean?
Reading them.
And, now you will provide a list of scholarly journals (or colleagues) for which you have read studies.
I read statistical reports related to the housing industry and homelessness quite frequently for business, and reports about climatology and other sciences occasionally for what for want of a better word we shall call pleasure. I can give you citations when I have time, whereupon you may notice a striking similarity in some of the language, though I doubt there's much point.
So, your interpretation of the HHS study is that Head Start is an investment. Upon what, other than your opinion, is your interpretation based?
The fact that it's been running for 47 years whereas a horse race lasts for about 47 seconds.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see."
Oh, the irony.
And, did you somehow miss Glenn's comment #1?
No.
And Baronius, Warren cited the preliminary and final HHS reports - or rather he cited HotAir's citation of the Heritage Foundation's citation of them. He apparently still fails to realise that the report Glenn is talking about in comment 1 is that very same report.
Agreed, this is getting very tiresome.
61 - troll
(Dreadful - I'd given up on this thread days ago - not enough paranoid content (or so I thought) - and only just saw that you commented on the 'biased statistician' problem hours before I did over on W's tax thread...kudos and I owe you a cookie)
62 - troll
Chris - #43 interesting link...my take on game theoretic explanations so far:
gt = 'an eye for an eye' meets the golden rule
tit-for-tat emerges as a basis for cooperation - but along with a significant failure rate...which back in the mundane world can prove problematic (witness wars man-made starvation AGW congressional deadlock etc)
...still working on it obviously - hopefully we'll figure it out before in fact 'the whole world is made blind'
63 - Baronius
I stand corrected, Dread.
I've just looked over the actual December 2012 report. It's filled with hard statistics: for example, it takes about ten pages describing how they developed a randomized, representative sample. The last third of the report is statistical tables.
I am the closest thing Warren's going to get around here to a neutral judge. It's my finding that this article wasn't written by a statistician who reviewed the report. Either Warren isn't a statistician or he did compile this article from weak secondary sources and didn't bother to confirm their spin on the report. Either way Warren's credibility with me is zero. If I continue to read his articles, it'll only be for the threads that follow.
64 - Dr Dreadful
tit-for-tat emerges as a basis for cooperation
Well, yes, if everybody's on the same page. Oddly, though, people seem less keen on applying the eye-for-an-eye principle when it's they who have done the tatting.
65 - Dr Dreadful
Thanks, Baronius - you're a gent. You and I seldom agree about much, but I hope all of us BC regulars appreciate your integrity as much as I do.
66 - Baronius
As Moe says, get the other guy to trust you, then jam a fork into his eye. No, I mean, um, thank you, I really do have integrity.
67 - Dr Dreadful
:-)
68 - Baronius
Leaving the statistics aside for a moment, this article alleges that the HHS report was delayed until after the election. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Let's say it came out in October. It shows weak benefits from a social program. What was supposed to happen? Would the press have read it? and then asked really hard questions of the President? Would Romney have called for money to be taken away from poor children? If he had, would that have won over the hearts of the Democratic faithful? Would Todd Akin have been forgiven, and Elizabeth Warren admitted falsifying her resume?
69 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius and Dread -
Most of us on here do have integrity - some more than others. As I've pointed out too many times, my personal yardstick for measuring one's integrity is how often one is prone to admit error without taking offense, and Baronius is certainly well over on the plus side.
Now, if I could only get a certain someone in my life (not my wife, thank God!) to understand that, but those with an honest-to-goodness A-type personality are simply unable to see the point, I guess.