Talk:Head Start

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Effectiveness section of this article was hopelessly one-sided, and discussed largely pre-K services rather than Head Start services, which is what the article is supposed to be about. I deleted the section, pending the creation of a more balanced review of the massive literature surrounding Head Start's effectiveness. -- pbfrank@gmail.com

Not only is it one-sided, but the quotes from their favored sources are very selective. In fact some of the studies conclude the opposite of what we are led to believe in this article. - huangdi

I agree. The citations were one-sided and uninformative. The section lists perceived shortcomings but fails to discuss other factors that may cause them. Wordbuilder 23:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading through the Administrative History at the LBJ Library it becomes clear that Head Start is effective. There is a stipulation of course. The environment of Head Start needs to be followed through into grade school. A study by Wolffe and Stein (funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity) states that, "test scores are uniformly lower for Head Start pupils in classes in which the teaching was poor and that, conversely, Head Start pupils scored consistently higher than their classmates in groups with good teachers." This makes sense. The child must not be thrown into a dilapidated school once he reaches the first grade. The uninteresting and unmotivating environment would make it difficult to learn for any child. Source from: Administrative History of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Vol. I, p.252, Box 1, LBJ Library. --paulellul@gmail.com

I agree with the above observations, and I have tagged a POV for this article, as it still contains the bias at the time of the tag, and the categorizations do not address the above suggestions and observations. I hope the the contributor immediately above edits the article--I am unqualified to do so. Kemet 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody have the cite for Wolffe and Stein? I'd be happy to add it. That's not actually Maryanne Wolfe at Tufts, is it? I thought something was forthcoming on Head Start from the Tufts Child Development program? Also, anybody have something more for Freakanomics? I'd suggest limiting this section to specific studies, and saying a popular book is critical of the program really doesn't add anything useful (how, why and based on what data are, I think, the right questions). Sam 14:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Freakonomics doesn't have a lot to say about Head Start. I edited that section to address their main point. I left out some unsourced theorizing about how uneducated teachers may be to blame for Head Start's poor long-term effects, because Head Start teaching positions are low-paid and unlikely to attract highly qualified candidates. PubliusFL 17:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to address the bias by categorizing what other people have done (con-, mixed, and pro-) and adding in summary the first year Impact Report. Perhaps others can add studies on all sides and any responses people may want to have to the big congressional study. I know there is also at least one other big study pending. Sam 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I reverted this edit because the editor is the co-Executive Director at the non-profit the link pointed to. This doesn't mean the link isn't appropriate, just that it needs the eyes of regular editors of this article to look at it and decide if the link should be included. --Siobhan Hansa 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)