What is even more interesting is that 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? Coincidence? Perhaps. Your call, but coincidences just seem to keep piling up. I would really like to know what Yasmina Vinci had to say about these two studies, or if she even bothered to read them.
And I really find the web page for the Skagit/Islands Head Start program to be quite humorous. It says, "Head Start is a free ... program ...[.] What I find humorous is that the program has the nerve to bill itself as "free." Nothing is free. There is no free lunch! Whether through taxpayer dollars, or indoctrination, or both, payment will eventually come due.
So, poverty is still with us, and Head Start has been shown to be ineffective. If Dear Leader President Barack Hussein Obama is serious about reducing this country's deficit (as he claims), then why not eliminate a program that two congressional studies have shown to be ineffective, to have no statistically significant effect, or that can actually be harmful? True, $8 billion isn't much, but reducing the deficit must begin somewhere. Or is eliminating Head Start too much of a human service for participants? After all, Head Start participants are children. We do everything for the children. Relieving them of some of the deficit would certainly help them.
But that's just my opinion.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren! Oh...Warren! Wake up, it's time to go to school!
Welcome, Warren, to Reading Class. I see your report here on the benefits - or lack thereof - of Head Start. I see that you listed quite a few instances where Head Start provided no benefit to students, and even one or two negative effects, but you provided no examples of positive effects at all.
You, young man, are GUILTY. You are guilty of failing to check the veracity of your sources. You saw what you wanted to see, what you assumed was true, but you did NOT check to see if they were telling you the whole story. I checked your reference on the results of the study, and it was a link to the right-wing website hotair.com. THEIR reference was a link to the Heritage Foundation. And what served as the Heritage Foundation's references? NOTHING!!!! Go to the little tab at the bottom to 'show references', and you get NOTHING!
So I used this little tool called 'bing' to look for those oh-so-damning studies, and what did I find? Oh, there were those quotes that you listed above, but there was much, much more, like:
At the end of their Head Start year, there was strong evidence that the Head Start group demonstrated better skills on the following five child outcomes related to children’s language and literacy development: (1) PPVT (vocabulary), (2) WJ III Letter-Word, (3) Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (CTOPPP) Elision, (4) Letter Naming, and (5) WJ III Pre-Academic Skills. There was also a statistically significant impact on the measure of children’s pre-writing skills. Children in the Head Start group were found to have more advanced math skills than their counterparts at the end of the Head Start year on the WJ III test of Applied Problems.
...
At the end of the Head Start year, children in the Head Start group showed strong evidence of less hyperactive behavior and fewer overall problem behaviors as reported by their parents.
? At the end of the age 4 year and the end of kindergarten, children in the Head Start group demonstrated suggestive evidence of better social skills and positive approaches to learning as reported by their parents. Further, children in the Head Start group also continued to show moderate evidence of less hyperactive behavior at the end of kindergarten.
? By the end of 1st grade, parents of Head Start group children reported moderate evidence of a closer relationship with their child than parents of control group children. At the same time, parents of Head Start group children reported (suggestive evidence) a more positive overall relationship with their child than parents of children in the control group.
AND
At the end of 3rd grade for the 3-year-old cohort, the most striking sustained subgroup findings were found in the cognitive domain for children from high risk households as well as for children of parents who reported no depressive symptoms. Among the 4-year-olds, sustained benefits were experienced by children of parents who reported mild depressive symptoms, severe depressive symptoms, and Black children.
In other words, Warren, by not checking the veracity of your sources, you did not realize that your sources were CHERRY-PICKING. You should have remembered that when it comes to when it comes to the efforts of human beings (not including Jesus), there is no such thing as perfectly good or perfectly bad, and when you read those far-right echo-chamber reports that ONLY gave you the bad side, that in and of itself should have told you should bear in mind a Russian proverb popularized by Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify". You trusted those sites, but you did not VERIFY, and your article suffered greatly as a result. I suggest you go rewrite it, and be a bit more diligent in your research.
2 - troll
Warren - you do realize how disappointing it is to find that your money line - 'it's for the kids' - is lifted from Skip's work over at GraniteGrok right?
3 - clav
(1) PPVT (vocabulary), (2) WJ III Letter-Word, (3) Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (CTOPPP) Elision, (4) Letter Naming, and (5) WJ III Pre-Academic Skills.
My, what classic examples of government gobbledygook masquerading as education.
Before you get all hot under the collar, Glenn, I'm referring only to those titles (and those acronyms! Oy!) and their so incredibly bad writing, NOT the reports themselves (which I haven't read -- the titles begged to be lampooned).
All kidding aside, the existence of two congress-mandated studies that found Head Start to be deficient is cause for alarm. Instead of eagerly (and triumphantly) rushing to prove once again that the evil Warren is a hack, you might have cited this New York Times article, published in November of 2011, that notes that there are indeed, significant shortcomings in the program, and that Obama is increasing funding for the program to address these shortcomings.
But, of course, that's not nearly as much fun as Warren bashing; I understand that: government bashing, for me, is a most rewarding and delightful pastime.
And, of course, the US government is such an easy target...
4 - Baronius
It disturbs me how funny I found that comment about Johnson's middle name.
I haven't double-checked Warren's or Glenn's analysis, but historically, reviews of Head Start have been ambiguous. The response has typically been to throw money at it to make it better. Like so mamy things we talk about, the argument becomes more about protecting one's side than fixing the original problem.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
historically, reviews of Head Start have been ambiguous. The response has typically been to throw money at it to make it better
True enough - it has its good points and bad. But I've long felt that:
(1) we'd have better teachers if we didn't treat them like second-class citizens (41% of teachers in Texas have to moonlight in order to make ends meet, remember) - you get what you pay for, and if you refuse to pay good wages to teachers, then a lot of teachers aren't going to be good. Middle-class pay for teachers is essential to having good teachers, and once we have a lot more good teachers than so-so teachers, then you'll see improvements from Head Start through K-12.
(2) That said, Head Start is also IMO a form of government-provided child care - something that is otherwise usually beyond the financial reach of single working moms or dads. Thus the quote I provided of its significant benefits to disadvantaged families.
6 - Jet Gardner
Childishly starting your article with a smartass remark ie "( Did y'all catch that I used Johnson's middle name?)" is hardly a way of garnering respect for anything that comes afterward.
John F. Kennedy was known mostly by the public affectionately as JFK. This came about when Lyndon Baines Johnson began getting called London Johmson by mistake in the media very early in his career, so he began asking people to simply call him LBJ. When he married, his wife, Lady Bird took the same initials as her husband. This brought attention to their middle names.
No one but you refers to our current president (not even Fox News) using Hussein.
Get a life Warren
7 - Jet Gardner
"You are guilty of failing to check the veracity of your sources. You saw what you wanted to see"
Quoted for truth
8 - troll
I'm with Glenn - I've always thought of head start as a babysitting deal giving single dads a chance to go turn tricks down in the combat zone
9 - clav
I've always thought of head start as a babysitting deal giving single dads a chance to go turn tricks down in the combat zone
On other words, a boondoggle, which is a synonym for a government endeavor.
10 - clav
IN other words...
11 - Jet Gardner
Warren uber-conservatve website Heritage Foundation published an almost identicle article to this one on January 10th-you should go after them since they copied your notes and published them 4 days before you could!
12 - troll
...re #8 - a veritable socialist redistribution of wealth and germs
13 - Igor
My wife says Head Start was really good for the kids she saw, and everything I've read said it generally was an advantage.
14 - clav
Nuthin' like anecdotal evidence to incontrovertibly prove a point...
15 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 1, Glenn, I have to ask: Are you actively trying to provide comic relief? The report that you cite (that you found with Bing) was produced by (wait for it ...) Health and Human Services, under which Head Start falls. And surprise, HHS found Head Start to be effective. Could HHS be trying to justify part of its existence? I think perhaps we can find the answer to that question by citing a passage from the very report you tout: "The Head Start Impact Study is a comprehensive, well-designed study of a large-scale early childhood program that has existed for more than 40 years" The emphasis is mine, but it pretty well captures the self-congratulatory nature of the entire report. And, "Providing access to Head Start has a positive impact on children’s preschool experiences." Again, emphasis mine, but that statement does sound rather self-congratulatory. Kinda puts the validity of the entire report in doubt, doesn't it?
Besides, Glenn, did you even bother to read the ENTIRE report? Your comment cites some positive findings, but you somehow (on purpose?) omitted the following:
"By the end of 1st grade, only a single cognitive impact was found for each cohort." And that single cognitive impact was not named, nor was the number of cognitive impact factors given.
"By the end of 1st grade, there was some evidence that the 3-year-old cohort had closer and more positive relationships with their parents."
"However, the advantages children gained during their Head Start and age 4 years yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade for the sample as a whole." And guess what - the study highlighted only those findings.
"By the end of 1st grade, there was some evidence that the 3-year-old cohort had closer and more positive relationships with their parents."
"For the 4-year-old cohort, there was an impact on child health insurance coverage at the end of kindergarten and 1st grade, and an impact on child health status in kindergarten. For the 3-year-olds, there was an impact on child health insurance coverage in kindergarten only." What does the word "impact" mean here? We cannot assume it to have a positive connotation, since the phrase "positive favorable impacts" in the very next finding. The use of the the word "impact" is, at best, quibbling.
"There were also a few subgroups of children that showed patterns of unfavorable impacts." Here is that word "impact" again. Glenn, did you omit this finding on purpose?
Your own comment furthers my analysis: "By the end of 1st grade, parents of Head Start group children reported moderate evidence of a closer relationship with their child than parents of control group children. At the same time, parents of Head Start group children reported (suggestive evidence) a more positive overall relationship with their child than parents of children in the control group." Never had any statistics training, have you?
So, in conclusion, I (as a statistician who has read many research studies) must conclude that HHS has done an excellent job of obfuscating by cherry picking only findings that support their case. And, the study you cite is the same 2010 report I cite. Reading the same report from two different perspectives can produce two different results. But my analysis, as I have tried to illustrate, examines methodology rather than content, something HHS failed to do. This conclusion is, of course, my personal opinion formed by education and experience.
Now, Glenn, what about the 2012 report? Where is your refutation of it?
Glenn, you say, "Warren, by not checking the veracity of your sources, you did not realize that your sources were CHERRY-PICKING." You continue, "... but you did not VERIFY, and your article suffered greatly as a result." I could say the same for your comment. This analysis is a way to identify where the deficit could be reduced. The overriding questions are, "Do we want to continue to spend $8 billion each year on "less than proven" results?b Is Obama serious about deficit reduction?" But, since conservatives are not in power, I do not expect Head Start to be curtailed.
Re: comment # 7, troll, Huh?
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
I didn't think you could possibly miss the point in my comment, but you managed to do so anyway! If you'll READ my comment - and the reply that I made to Baronius, too - you'd see that my whole point was that there are TWO sides to the story, that while there are bad points, there are good points, too!
Dude, you really need to get off the I-hate-everything-that's-not-hardcore-conservative train, because it's taking you somewhere you really don't see coming.
17 - Jet Gardner
As predicted, "Not" has in the past-and will continue to respond here and in the future to reasonable people with...
A. You missed my point-therefore you are wrong-because you don't agree with me.
B. You didn't read-or you misread any or all of the article or you'd agree with me-despite my questionable research and twisting of facts to fit my agenda.
C. That comment has nothing to do with my article (even if it does)
See link in comment 10-it should look familiar despite the rewording...
18 - Dr Dreadful
This is priceless...
Warren's rebuttal of Glenn:
The report that you cite (that you found with Bing) was produced by (wait for it ...) Health and Human Services, under which Head Start falls. And surprise, HHS found Head Start to be effective. Could HHS be trying to justify part of its existence?
And the headline of Warren's primary source, an article on HotAir.com:
"HHS Study: Yep, Head Start doesn’t work"
Warren, only you could poison the well while drawing from the very same well...
19 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 15, Glenn, is that the best response you can offer? Certainly, there are two sides to every situation/study/event. My # 14 response showed how tenuious, how silly your side appears once someone with training examines the article YOU offered. Yes, I completely understood your comment. It just couldn't withstand objective scrutiny. As Col. Nathan R. Jessep (played by Jack Nicholson) said in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth."
Re: comment # 16, Jet, are we beginning to see a stock response from you each time someone disagrees with your opinion? I notice that you never discuss article issues, except only in terms that YOU frame.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
My # 14 response showed how tenuious, how silly your side appears once someone with training examines the article YOU offered.
Oh. You mean the article I offered as a reference wasn't something that should be used as a reference? Even when it was the SAME reference that the hotair.com and Heritage Foundation quoted?
Ah, I see - it's okay to take as gospel the NEGATIVE findings in the report by HHS, but it's NOT okay to give any credence whatsoever to the POSITIVE findings in that VERY SAME report!!!
And to top it all off, you really, truly do not comprehend the hypocrisy of eagerly accepting the negative findings while flatly ignoring the positive findings of the same report!
BTW - your reference to Col. Jessep is more appropriate than you thought, because it was his willful ignorance and overweening pride, his assumption that bureaucrats (like lawyers) simply could neither understand nor be trusted, that led to the kind of command climate that resulted in the victim's wrongful death.
The irony...it burns!
21 - Dr Dreadful
I find it interesting that two of the most over-used quotes in today's vernacular are (1) "You can't handle the truth!" and (2) "Hello? McFly?"
And that those who use them, and think they're being smart and clever, forget that they were uttered by two of the most memorably unsympathetic characters in recent Hollywood history - and showing them at their worst, to boot.
22 - John Lake
#11
I went ahead and compared the two, and found no similarity. Just for the record.
23 - clav
As the editor of this article, I ran it through two plagiarism detectors (as I do with all articles I edit) before publishing.
There is no plagiarism.
24 - Jet Gardner
Check again Clavos...
It's a simple matter of looking for words that "not" normally doesn't use, then subtract his added hatred for "Hussein".
"Not" says: This country has spent over $180 billion since its inception
Heritage foundation: Taxpayers have spent nearly $180 billion on Head Start since its inception in 1965 with nothing to show for it.
"Not" says: What is even more interesting is that 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?
Hot air says: 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.
There's more, but why bother?
25 - Jet Gardner
From Fault lines...
It's Time to Gore the Sacred Cow of "Education" . . .
Headlining the Local Section of Yesterday's Observer-Dispatch was this AP story: "N. Y. Senate coalition vows to reject school aid cuts." A "new coalition" of...