Does Head Start Work?

I have been reading a book on early brain development. It was talking
about how programs like Head Start are not proven to improve learning
in children because they begin after age three. Does anyone know if
there is any new research supporting the effectiveness of Head Start
programs?

On Dec 10, 12:40 am, wrote:
I have been reading a book on early brain development. It was talking
about how programs like Head Start are not proven to improve learning
in children because they begin after age three.

I think they cannot improve learning because they cannot raise
intelligence, and starting earlier would not change that. They may
produce short-term gains on intelligence tests, but those gains do not
represent real gains in "g" (general intelligence) and are not
transferable. My sources for these statements are some books by Arthur
Jensen, "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability" (1998) and
"Straight Talk About Mental Tests" (1983)

Does anyone know if there is any new research supporting the effectiveness of Head Start
programs?

Some of the research is summarized at the Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start .

If you look just at IQ scores, probably not. There is research that
indicates that any IQ or straight cognitive skills gain fades out by 3rd
grade, and this has been used as a reason to claim that the program doesn't
work.

However, if you look at entering Kindergarteners from low income families
who have had Head Start or Title I Pre-K programs vs those who have been in
family care or various daycares, there's a dramatic difference. Children who
have had this high quality pre-K experience are simply better able to learn
in a school setting. They already know what behaviors are expected, have
some of the precursor skills (a Head Start child will know how to hold a
book, how to turn pages, what direction the words go-all things that many
inner city children enter kindergarten NOT knowing), and in general will
have a more successful experience in that first year. In addition, since
part of Head Start involves health care, children who have treatable
conditions, which range from decaying teeth (it's hard to learn when your
teeth hurt-and many young children may not have the vocabulary or ability to
verbalize it if such hasn't been modelled for them) to lead exposure to
speech delays will have already started treatment, and that makes a
difference as well.

The result is children who experience success in kindergarten, and
generally, this continues on. That's not saying that Head Start children
will always be the top of the class or will always make good grades. But it
does mean that, in 6th grade, it's often still visible which kids got that
"head start" just due to behavior, attitude, and resilience. These kids
still experience failure and still struggle, but usually have had enough
early success that they can more easily bounce back and recover. For many
comparable students, school has been a continual experience of failure since
they started, and by 6th grade, they've largely checked out.

One of the few Longitudial studies of quality Pre-K, and in fact one piece
of research which was very instrumental in the contiunation of Head Start as
the one survivor of the War on Poverty is the Perry Preschool Project, from
the High/Scope foundation. It demonstrated that a high quality pre-K
program, for urban, low-income children, had a strong positive coorelation
to being in the correct age for grade, finishing high school, and being
gainfully employed after school (among other things)-which therefore has
long-term societal benefits.

Hi --

There is, in fact, a large body of literature on Head Start. Some
places to look include:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/ (US Dept of Health and Human
Services Office of Head Start)

The front page of Britain's office of Head Start is at
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/soci...tresearch.html

It includes a summary of existing research.

If you google "research on head start" you'll find a number of other
leads.

In short, even when started as late as three years of age, Head Start
programs show positive long-term effects on children born in poverty.

--Beth Kevles
-THE-COM-HERE
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would
like me to reply.

"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 12:40 am, wrote:
I have been reading a book on early brain development. It was talking
about how programs like Head Start are not proven to improve learning
in children because they begin after age three.

I think they cannot improve learning because they cannot raise
intelligence, and starting earlier would not change that.



Studies have shown that neural pathways in the brain develop with use.
Babies start making these connections immediately. Engaging activities,
loving care and appropriate games help develop these connections which have
long term benefits for the child. I know nothing about Head Start. But I
think your view of intelligence being a fixed thing, you get this much
delivered to you as part of your genetic makeup, is faulty.




They may
produce short-term gains on intelligence tests, but those gains do not
represent real gains in "g" (general intelligence) and are not
transferable. My sources for these statements are some books by Arthur
Jensen, "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability" (1998) and
"Straight Talk About Mental Tests" (1983)



Those are pretty old sources. New thinking has replaced old as more
informationis gathered.


Does anyone know if there is any new research supporting the
effectiveness of Head Start
programs?

Some of the research is summarized at the Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start .

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Dec 10, 12:40 am, wrote:
I have been reading a book on early brain development. It was talking
about how programs like Head Start are not proven to improve learning
in children because they begin after age three.

I think they cannot improve learning because they cannot raise
intelligence, and starting earlier would not change that. They may
produce short-term gains on intelligence tests, but those gains do not
represent real gains in "g" (general intelligence) and are not
transferable.

But this makes no sense - intelligence and learning are two different things!
Intelligence is, at most, a measure of *potential*, and in certain areas of
symbolic manipulation only. Learning is the fullfillment of what potential
there is.

Banty

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:40:51 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I have been reading a book on early brain development. It was talking
about how programs like Head Start are not proven to improve learning
in children because they begin after age three. Does anyone know if
there is any new research supporting the effectiveness of Head Start
programs?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...ces/index.html

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...s_findings.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre..._faces_w03.pdf


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Dec 10, 8:30 am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Dec 10, 12:40 am, wrote:

I have been reading a book on early brain development. It was talking
about how programs like Head Start are not proven to improve learning
in children because they begin after age three.

I think they cannot improve learning because they cannot raise
intelligence, and starting earlier would not change that. They may
produce short-term gains on intelligence tests, but those gains do not
represent real gains in "g" (general intelligence) and are not
transferable. My sources for these statements are some books by Arthur
Jensen, "The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability" (1998) and
"Straight Talk About Mental Tests" (1983)

Quoting "The g Factor", p338,

"The general conclusion of the hundreds of studies based on Head Start
data is that the program has little, if any effect on IQ or scholastic
achievement that endures beyond more than two or three years after
exposure to Head Start. The program does, however, have some potential
health benefits, such as innoculations of enrolees against common
childhood diseases and improved nutrition (by school-provided
breakfast or lunch). The documented behavioral effects are less
retention-in-grade and lower dropout rates. The cause(s) of these
effects are uncertain. Because eligible children were not randomly
enrolled in Head Start, but were selected by parents and program
administrators, these scholastic correlates of Head Start are
uninterpretable from a causal viewpoint. Selection, rather direct
causation by the educational intervention itself, could be the
explation of Head Start's beneficial outcomes."

On p342 and following Jensen discusses the Abecedarian Early
Intervention Project, which involved infants as young as 6 weeks old
in a day care center 6-8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year
for five years, after which the kids started kindergarten. He says
that the treatment group had IQ scores 4.6 points (0.35 sd) higher
than the control group, with a "somewhat larger" effect on scholastic
achievement test scores at age 15. Only 28% of the treatment group vs.
55% of the control group repeated at least one grade by age 12.

Therefore my statement "starting earlier would not change that" was
too strong, although a boost of 0.35 sd in intelligence still would
bring the treatment group up to average.

Hello --

The studies that I read state clearly that Head Start has significant
long-term effects, including higher high school graduation rates, lower
incidences of disruptive behavior and more. These studies compare
low-income students who go through Head Start programs with their peers
who enter kindergarten without access to it. Links to these studies
have been posted earlier in this thread, so you can read them yourself.

Other studies show that Early Head Start (which enrolls children in
their first year of life) has even greater benefits, but regular Head
Start is still very beneficial.

--Beth Kevles
-THE-COM-HERE
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would
like me to reply.

On Dec 10, 8:03 am, (Beth Kevles) wrote:
Hi --

There is, in fact, a large body of literature on Head Start. Some
places to look include:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/(US Dept of Health and Human
Services Office of Head Start)

The front page of Britain's office of Head Start is athttp://www.literacytrust.org.uk/socialinclusion/earlyyears/headstartr...

It includes a summary of existing research.

If you google "research on head start" you'll find a number of other
leads.

In short, even when started as late as three years of age, Head Start
programs show positive long-term effects on children born in poverty.

Thank you for the links. They were quite helpful with my research.