Cleaner Classrooms and Rising Scores: With Tighter Oversight, Head Start Shows Gains

Thank you for sharing this story. However, I am going to take issue with one item. I have noticed that in many of your "great" coverage pieces regarding programs to assist young children in difficult circumstances, single working mothers, fathers struggling to find work, etc... your staff tends to include photos of people of color. I live in a California city where 82.3% of the population is white -and the county has a lower median income, a crazy high rate of opioid abuse, street crime, homelessness. The folks representing these social struggles are overwhelmingly WHITE. I am tired of seeing such stories more often than not associated with people of color - I love your paper, but you are continuing to perpetuate stereotypes; many which have taken even deeper hold in this current political climate. Many feel that any government programs is a hand-out to Brown people. I can tell you from where I live... those handouts and hand-ups - are for White people. I noticed the same thing during your coverage of the government shutdown - why so many photos of people of color affected by the shutdown and needing to get back to work?? These social situations affect people across the spectrum - more balance would greatly be appreciated.

Great article and love the photos...

"Whether better instruction will improve the children’s long-term performance remains unknown. " Why are we so happy to fund a program that has existed for 53 years and yet about which we have no idea if it works??? This is pork-barrel. It is an education system captured by teachers. Head Start is not an evidence-based, effective anti-poverty program.

It was upsetting that the financial penalties are so large that it might have the unintended consequence of forcing schools to close. Like the one school missing a bilingual teacher that lost half its grant. That is a much less serious violation than the other school filled with mold. That organization might just pack up its bags and decide to stop serving the area. Why not help fund the school to advertise to fund that teacher's position instead of penalize them, which could lead them to close?

Early education has become something of a mania - a proposed cure-all - to people like our Mayor. But Finnish children start school at seven years old and score number one in Europe.

Head Start is a START, and the children need continuing support. Children of wealthier families have advantages, such as more highly educated parents, the economics to travel, to have lessons out of school, and so much more. Test scores are not the measure of success in life. A caring, socially engaging environment for a young child is a contribution to that child's life, and to society as a whole.

Head Start has existed for 50 years. Yet, the evaluation scores seem to be unacceptably low with only modest recent improvements.

“...factors that may explain rising scores include an increase in funding per child (18 percent in the last five years) and better teacher training.” And yet, the current Secretary of Education does not support teacher professional development. I guess excellent teachers are just being born in some mythical garden somewhere. Meanwhile she encourages diverting public funds to private providers leaving even lower per-pupil expenditures for the rest.

What does the current research show about the long term academic benefits of the improved Head Start Program? Has Head start increased their parent training?

A very encouraging article and an opportunity to read some positive news. My congratulations to Ms. Wynn-Hall for leading the way to make this program work to meet its goals of providing a healthy early childhood enrichment environments and improving teacher performance. Removing the politics and corruption of failed providers is an obvious necessity. Our children demand much better from all adults who impact and participate in Head Start. As a voter, I will be monitoring this story to read about continuing improvements. This federal program is one of the most critical programs we have and must be encouraged and funded.

I remember when President Obama emphasized the importance of preschool. As most often is the case, he proved to be right as the results show.

I think there would be other benefits not mentioned here like school readiness. These children are getting their first experiences in being in a classroom with a group of children, learning to follow directions, interact in/as a group, and to look to a teacher (not a relative) for guidance, protection, reassurance, and discipline. All of that means that the start of kindergarten places them in familiar territory in which they can begin to learn at that level. It seems that there is also, at least in some places, valuable help for parents in how they engage their young children in constructive ways.

THE BEST NATIONAL INVESTMENT Only by getting children of dysfunctional families and uneducated, disturbed or addicted parents into programs like Head Start can cycles of poverty and crime be broken. Early childhood education and day-care programs also free parents for income-producing work. They should become a much bigger part of the federal budget, one that can pay for itself with future savings and revenue increases in local, state and federal budgets.

So refreshing to read a positive story. I disagree with all the nay-sayers below. Any program that gets young kids into a good environment, interacting with each other, learning , playing, is doing a lot of good going down the road. I wish I had had this in my early years, it would have helped me a lot. These kids will 'remember' this period all their lives.

Giving poor children a safe, stimulating place to be Monday - Friday (where they will be fed) is just right. It would be cruel to not to do it, no matter what any study says.

The photo of the two sweet little kids napping caused me to pause - they are on blankets, on little raised bed-things, on top of a rug. I would not be the least surprised if all three items were made in China, and I can say with much certainty that all three items are chock-full of chemicals. Let's get chemicals away from our growing kids! It does not help growing brains, or any brains. Of course, greedy Trump & Co. not only do not care but actually want more toxic substances to flood our kids and each and every one of us.

Your typical jounalist's "bipartisanship is bliss" oddly has no explanation of who came together or how. Given what the GOP/Right has done to spearate families and give overs schools to private interests, the path forward is much more likely to be the crushing of the GOP. It's time to lose the phny objectivity and deal with the consequences of unlimited money for political contributions and the elevation of foxes to guard the hen house.

So why does it remain so hard to advocate for better classrooms, more teachers with better pay to support better training, and more for older children???

No data on reported 'improved test scores,' nor any assessment of retention vs. fading of learning. Article is worthless.

A dangerous study. This kind of "ends justifies the means" is what has already begun to erode the important developmental aspects of childhood. My 3 turning 4 grandson is in a more "privileged" preschool where the day is all inventive play and imagination, accompanied by large swaths of free outdoor play. That's the experience that portends cognitive and social progress. As one psychologist commented, the long term outcomes of programs that produce short term score gains are not clear. Yes they are. Several very important studies showed that short term gains from early "academic" work wash out by 3rd grade and, counterintuitively, thereafter seem to reduce success even further. There is certainly value in having clean facilities and loving adults in an early childhood environment, but these efforts to demonstrate efficacy by assessing the kids are deeply troubling to those of us who have worked for decades in early childhood education. And, of course, stringent expectations are the milieu for poor kids, particularly of color. Privileged white kids don't have these environments. We should ask why. The answer - and I've heard it - from "education reformers" - is that the poor kids need it. And that is both false and offensive.

In another comment I argued that the "efficacy" argument is a terrible way to look at early childhood experiences. I must add another absent perspective. Why must we talk about children as though they are to be formed for some future purpose? What about their lives now? Today? Kids should be free to play, imagine, discover and create things. Our responsibility should be to provide a safe, loving environment where that can happen. It's important all by itself. Yes, I know, it would be lovely if families did that. But many can't because we have allowed a society where so many people are overwhelmed with the mere effort to survive. If we provide loving, safe places for children to be fully alive, the rest of it will take care of itself. We don't need to "school" them.

Just learned that with the eventual minimum wage increase to $15 in New Jersey, families may not be eligible for Head Start anymore. More than 70% of Head Start families work, and a minimum wage of just $10 an hour makes a single mom of one child earn too much to qualify.

I’m so tired of the racists in this country that decry programs like Head Start and SNAP as “Day Care for Black Kids” and “Soda and Chips for Welfare Queens.” Aside from just being factually wrong, it’s just offensive from a human perspective (but they’re not quite as human as you are they?). These same awful people are the ones that scream to get off welfare and work. In that case, helping working parents with day care while they work should be justification enough for them. There’s only one thing guaranteed in life, like it or not (and you don’t) these children WILL grow up and live among us. I prefer to have them have working role models in their early years when they form their value systems.

In the early 2000’s I worked for four years, as a mental health educator and counselor, serving a five-star Head Start and Early Head Start program for the city of Denver. I trained classroom teachers, staff and administrators on social-emotional well being; how to create a harmonious teaching environment; encouraging empathy; developmental stages of 0-6 year olds; lead parent support groups; and, counseled the most troublesome children. Our group also studied the resiliency of young children and how best to encourage it in the classroom and at home, long before resiliency and “grit” became trendy. This article highlights the successful outcomes and demonstrates the best of our society. It’s sad to hear the negative comments from other readers who may not understand the impact Head Start can have on a community — and a child. The Head Start program I worked within was exemplary and a model for many. The thousands of children and parents I was fortunate to work with benefited from from highly trained people who cared about each child and family, giving meaning to the program’s name: Head Start.

let's get this straight. head start was established over 50 years ago and there is no evidence that it is any better that a bad free baby sitting service for unemployed parents.

I worked, as a Head Start Health Coordinator years ago. I am an RN. I was motivated, love the preschool age of the participants, was very ambitious, motivated, creative, eager. I worked with national agencies on several projects. I loved doing the job. Sad to say, the Director was very politically motivated and pulled stunts that were untoward, as she tried to promote herself and her position in the area of that Head Start and regionally, perhaps even nationally. She stepped on toes, lied, and did things that were not promoting the goodwill of Head Start, which is a very promising program. I left there, a job I loved and believed in, and could have helped so many. But I could not stand the unethical behavior of the Director or work alongside her knowing what was going on. It was too bad and I so wished it was different. It really was too bad a few months later - the Director was fired and literally walked out. Who knows? If that had happened before I quit, I might have stayed and done some important things for many, many kids. I hope there is greater oversight now with Head Start programs and funding, especially in certain areas that might need that oversight more than others. I think Head Start is a great idea with great premise, and to be successful workers need to be honest and not self promoting. Yes, I can only hope. Kids deserve the best!

Some posters have written that Head Start's academic benefits dissipate after a few years. As far as we know, this is true. However, there are longterm benefits. Graduates of Head Start have better health as adults than their siblings who did not attend Head Start, partly because they are less likely to smoke. Head Start grads are more likely to graduate from high school and more likely to attend college. They are more likely to be employed and less likely to be arrested than their counterparts who did not attend the program. Crime, unemployment, and poor health cost the taxpayers far more money than Head Start does. The program benefits us all.

Would love to hear this story of bipartisanship in POTUS SOTU. Do not want to hear credit taking or merits of the program, but what IS possible with collaboration aimed at improving lives while monitoring federal spending.

Drain that swamp, Trump! (And fill it full of former lobbyists.)

Oh my, having a Christian organization run a Federal program. Surely the liberal mob will be condemning this any minute now.

“Scores,” “scores” everywhere “scores” and tests! But, are they really learning, or learning to test and pass the tests and trip wires of the game of testing? Are they being taught to learn to learn and be creative, and be the leaders of tomorrow, or simply the robots of tomorrow?

Not all black children are in Head Start, and having raised two boys in West Virginia it is a blessing to many many white children. So, a simple suggestion--perhaps a more balanced picture of the program would help Americans see that Head Start is an important investment for all segments of our society.

Sometimes the classrooms are not diverse because it’s income based. If the primary population in the community is African American and low income then that will reflect in the classroom. It’s income based.

Something so good, even Trump decided not to ruin it. How refreshing.

Well this program does nothing for the rich, so Republicans must destroy it.

Judging from the pictures that accompany this article, it doesn't appear that Head Start serves a diverse group of children. I'd be interested in knowing if the families of the participating children contribute any money to help cover the cost of the services the children receive. If the families are either low income of poverty stricken, it would appear that working class and high income families are paying for what it essentially glorified daycare for the participants. Whether we like it or not, most government programs are ultimately funded by people who never receive any sort of service for the taxes paid.

First of all, this sentence jumps out at me: "It is aimed at young children, who cannot be faulted for their poverty." Generally speaking, this is also true of SNAP and Medicaid recipients, many of whom are also true. But we prefer to believe it's simply lack of personal responsibility that leaves people with budget shortfalls. As for the quality question asked by Rob: Do we have new data reflecting the higher quality of the programs? Perhaps achievement has improved. If it has not, we have more questions to ask. Can we build a better program? To say it's impossible contradicts the other research on high quality early childhood education. If ECE fails to sustain gains, is that because of something wrong with it, or because kindergarten programs don't build appropriately on the gains made? But there's a deeper question, too: that ECE is only worth paying for if it results in higher academic achievement. Is it not worth it to have children in high quality settings for its own sake? These kids are going to be in daycare. It is beneficial to them and to us that they be in a safe, secure, age appropriate setting.

The interesting question that the story only addresses in passing is does pre-school actually result in long term benefits for the students? The author notes that a federal study indicated no long term benefits, although this was a number of years ago. This was, as are most studies in this area, post facto analysis of the students. As such there is no good control group so any conclusions are suspect. More recently, there have been two (and only two) good experimental studies on the effects of pre-school on longer term academic achievement. Students who applied to subsidized pre-school were randomly assigned to either enroll in pre-school or were not admitted. This was feasible since there were many more applicants than seats available. When the students entered kindergarten, those who had preschool were substantially ahead. By the end of kindergarten, most of this advantage had faded. More significantly, by the end of first or third grade, there was no difference between those who attended preschool and those who had not. A priori, this suggests that preschool has no impact on longer term academic success. More importantly, these results raise the question of whether we should continue spending billions of dollars on preschool when all available experimental data indicate that it has no effect on achievement.