Head Start successful
Head Start's goal is “to boost the school readiness of low-income children.” The editorial “Those Head Start cuts: The problem is?” (Aug. 24 and TribLIVE.com) cites a study that concluded Head Start met that goal by significantly improving preschool outcomes. The editorial points out that when assessed at third grade, the general finding was that non-Head Start participants caught up to the Head Start participants. An important exception was that the positive impact of Head Start on young children from high-risk families was sustained through third grade.
Research has also documented long-term benefits from Head Start in school and afterward. Those benefits include an increase in school completion, greater earnings for Head Start alumni and less crime.
The editorial concludes that Head Start programs are a failure, deceive parents and should be eliminated because of the third-grade performance findings.
Head Start parents probably consider Head Start successful, knowing their children are more likely to be ready for school, graduate from high school, earn more money when they go to work and are less likely to commit crimes. Rather than feeling deceived, these parents probably lament the sequestration cuts to Head Start while the editorial applauds those Head Start cuts.
The writer is policy initiatives director in the University of Pittsburgh's Office of Child Development.
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.
- PETA & its tactics I
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- New Kensington block party thanks
- Uncaring toward soldiers
- PETA & its tactics II
- Bad cartoon
- Comprehensible failures
- Seeking Christ in kids
- Cockpit safety stalled
- More than one hero
- Gas industry obfuscates the truth