Head Start works I
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In response to the editorial “The Head Start ruse” (Jan. 16 and TribLIVE.com) based on a Wall Street Journal editorial about the Head Start Impact Study: The entire study should be read to fully understand the findings.
The key finding is that “providing access to Head Start has a positive impact on children's preschool experiences. There are statistically significant differences between the Head Start group and the control group on every measure of children's preschool experiences measured in this study.”
The criticism is that there is little difference between the children in Head Start and those in the control group in third grade. In other words, the control group, whose members may have been in another preschool program, caught up to the Head Start students.
Pittsburgh Public Schools serves 1,405 children with Head Start funds. Our data show a significant difference between students who received this service and those who did not. Not only do our Head Start students have higher reading and math outcomes on standardized tests in kindergarten and first grade than those who had an unknown preschool arrangement, they performed better on standardized literacy tests through fourth grade.
The writer is Pittsburgh Public Schools' executive director of early childhood education.
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.
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Proven success
- Funding priorities questioned
- Ukraine & history
- Saved her life
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Putin for Prez II
- Metcalfe wrong
- Weakness shows
- Sovereignty trampled