Share This Page

Head Start: It doesn't work

Washington's response to problematic public education -- throw more money at it -- is nowhere more evident than in 69 preschool and child-care programs, which collectively add up to $25 billion annually. Of these the most sacred is Head Start, a $9 billion-per-year program that serves about 900,0000 low-income children.

Since Head Start's inception in 1965, supporters have attested to its vast benefits. But until recently there's been no rigorous evaluation of its effectiveness for young children entering grade school.

A new study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reveals that $167.5 billion later (in 2009 dollars) Head Start has been a non-starter for children. In 41 measures of cognitive outcomes for 4-year-olds, the program had no impact. Note the study's authors, "the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole."

That it took the feds more than 40 years for a proper analysis suggests it's the spending that matters, not results.

And yet Congress is moving ahead to increase early childhood education programs with $8 billion in new spending.

Mr. Obama has said, repeatedly, that federal programs without benefit should be dumped. Well, Mr. President, here's one.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.