Those Head Start cuts: The problem is?
Save the wailing and gnashing of teeth over sequestration cuts affecting Head Start, a federal program that the federal government, itself, repeatedly has found to be a failure and deserves to be eliminated entirely.
USA Today reports the latest federal estimates say sequestration cuts will mean about 57,000 fewer slots total this fall in Head Start, the preschool program for low-income children ages 3 to 5, and Early Head Start, which focuses on families with infants and pregnant women. Also, more than 18,000 Head Start workers will face layoffs or smaller paychecks.
Among those lamenting the cuts is Cheryl Miller, executive director of the Indiana Head Start Association, who told USA Today, “For all of us, as a nation, this should be heartbreaking.”
On the contrary, what's truly heartbreaking is that it took sequestration to chip away, even a little, at the $8 billion Washington squanders annually on Head Start, even after a Department of Health and Human Services evaluation last year found — similar to evaluations in 1969, 1985 and 2005 — no discernible difference by third grade between Head Start children and their non-Head Start peers.
Equally heartbreaking is that low-income families continue to be cruelly misled, expecting real benefits that Head Start can't deliver.
Show commenting policy
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.
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- The student-loan balloon
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- China’s bank: Obama’s blunder
- The Connellsville WCVI building: Another fine mess