Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Amaya wrote:Where is the evidence other than KingCracker's claim (not that I doubt it) that Headstart actually works? If you can provide facts I will consider that it could be worthwhile. Otherwise, you're contributing anything by saying, "You're stupid."

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can read up on Head Start with a few minutes googling if you care. If you don't care, why ask us to do your research for you? If you don't doubt Kingcracker's word, then why cop an attitude about it? I don't expect you to be interested in or educated about early childhood education, but you can look into it if you care to. Dumping the burden of responsibility on us to inform you is lazy.

The cretaceous was a nod to Fraz. Hence the smiley.

And I was obviously asking timetowaste where the Dems were slinging mud in the Julia campaign. Which they clearly weren't.

Amaya wrote:
Maybe you should follow your own rules. Where is the evidence other than KingCracker's claim (not that I doubt it) that Headstart actually works?

The US Department of Health did this study in 2011. It basically concludes that Head Start provides notable benefits for certain population groups, and that further research is necessary to determine the exact effect (the study only tracked children through 1st grade).

Mannahnin wrote:I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can read up on Head Start with a few minutes googling if you care. If you don't care, why ask us to do your research for you? If you don't doubt Kingcracker's word, then why cop an attitude about it?

The cretaceous was a nod to Fraz. Hence the smiley.

Even though searching does Head Start work yields results claiming it does and doesn't work.

DHS Study 2011

"The report sums up the findings as follows: “Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade, a potentially important finding for children’s longer term development.”"

There is an article in Time saying Head Start should be cut.

There is a phenomenon known as the "Head Start Fade" that shows a significant loss of benefits from HS by 2nd or 3rd grade.

A Congressional study shows that it has greater benefits for 3 year olds, reduced benefits for 4 year olds, and the durability of such benefits was not assessed.

So, from what I gather, this is a feel good program that produces temporary and short lived results. So no, it doesn't work and instead of insulting people you should actually contribute to the discussion instead of claiming that others are ignorant because they disagree with your views. Also, automatically suggesting that someone didn't do cursory research whatsoever is extremely insulting and uncalled for.

Edit: Also, it was launched in 1964 and early Head Start was established in 1994. Why is there no long term evidence for or against the program?

I didn't call you ignorant for disagreeing. Please read your own posts. Said you were ignorant because you openly admitted ignorance and expected other people to explain a very well-known national educational program to you. You made clear in your post that you hadn't done any research, so there's clearly no insult.

Mannahnin wrote:I didn't call you ignorant for disagreeing. Please read your own posts. Said you were ignorant because you openly admitted ignorance and expected other people to explain a very well-known national educational program to you. You made clear in your post that you hadn't done any research, so there's clearly no insult.

Wait, how is the following suggestive of any of that.

1. Does Head Start actually work? Can you even push the average 4-5 year old to learn significantly faster? The whole program is insane, are we seriously prepping children for Kindergarten?

There is a debate to whether or not it actually works. There is data that supports a temporary benefit, but not lasting results.
Which leads to the question, can you push the average 4-5 year old to learn significantly faster? Well, if it only produces minor to moderate temporary results, the answer is no.
If there are no lasting benefits past 2nd or 3rd grade then the program is 'insane' and a waste of resources.


Instead of refuting anything I've posted, you shout "ignorance" and run off.

Here's my problem:

I thought the Obama campaign was run by geeks? Don't they
understand that changing one event of Julia's life changes all
other events in Julia's life, both past and present? I'm not sure
if I can trust a campaign of self-proclaimed smart people who
do with less than anything but a branching set of timelines to
represent the multiverse.

You asked if it worked, indicating you knew nothing about it.

You asked incredulously whether you can get a 4-5 year old to learn faster, making obvious that you're not familiar with early childhood development or education.

You called the program "insane", which was the point at which you made yourself look hyperbolic, strident, and aggressive, as opposed to interested in learning.

The unwillingness to take a few minutes to google, combined with the "insane" bit, is where you made clear that it was not worth trying to sell you on the program, as you weren't interested. Now that I've shamed you into it you've troubled yourself to spend a few minutes with google to reinforce your preconceptions and come to some clearly well-founded conclusions.

And you're taking offense at me calling you out on it a little?

Shamed me into researching it?

Why don't you refute the studies that claim it doesn't work and is a failure and instead of being self righteous and rude.

Amaya, I think you misunderstand what head start is and even the article you quoted. It is not an inoculation; it is a program intended to prepare young children for the rigors of formal education. You don't learn your ABCs and then suddenly forget them in 2nd or 3rd grade.

What DHS is referring to as far as a "fade" goes is that the early benefit is being diluted as it is unsupported in later grades. Rather than an issue with Head Start, the fault lies in not continuing to build upon those early gains.

The Congressional study you pointed to actually espouses the benefits of Head Start in that the earlier a child enters the educational process, the greater the benefit. Later years were not assessed because, well, Head Start stops when the child enters Kindergarten, as it is intended to.

Edit:
More information:
http://www.nhsa.org/files/static_page_files/48BB25A9-1D09-3519-ADE92FA32402B1FC/Head_Start_Works_by_YSV.pdf

As an educator, I have yet to find another person in my field that does not believe in Head Start.

agnosto wrote:Amaya, I think you misunderstand what head start is and even the article you quoted. It is not an inoculation; it is a program intended to prepare young children for the rigors of formal education. You don't learn your ABCs and then suddenly forget them in 2nd or 3rd grade.

What DHS is referring to as far as a "fade" goes is that the early benefit is being diluted as it is unsupported in later grades. Rather than an issue with Head Start, the fault lies in not continuing to build upon those early gains.

The Congressional study you pointed to actually espouses the benefits of Head Start in that the earlier a child enters the educational process, the greater the benefit. Later years were not assessed because, well, Head Start stops when the child enters Kindergarten, as it is intended to.

No, I'm not misunderstanding it. The fade works as such, by a 2nd or 3rd grade there is no longer a statistically significant improvement for children who attended Head Start over those who didn't.

Does that mean they aren't building on earlier gains or that children who didn't go through the program can learn quickly enough to catch up with those who did?

There are two sides to every story. I recommend you read the letter in the link I provided above.

I'm surprised you have a problem with other education programs like Race to the Top; doesn't it make sense to get away from the "welfare mentality" of doling out money to states without actually expecting results? A competitive grant system is a refreshing approach after NCLB flowed down the drain.

Amaya wrote:
There is an article in Time saying Head Start should be cut.

An article was published in a popular magazine!?

Quickly, we must heed its advice before its too late!

Amaya wrote:
There is a phenomenon known as the "Head Start Fade" that shows a significant loss of benefits from HS by 2nd or 3rd grade.

The existence of which is disputed.

Amaya wrote:
Why is there no long term evidence for or against the program?

No one paid for the relevant studies to be done. That type of research is extremely expensive, and also faces hurdles regarding subject participation.

Here's the link to the actual Impact Study; you'll note that the individuals involved actually admitted to difficulties and issues with the final report (page iii):
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_summary_final.pdf

agnosto wrote:There are two sides to every story. I recommend you read the letter in the link I provided above.

I'm surprised you have a problem with other education programs like Race to the Top; doesn't it make sense to get away from the "welfare mentality" of doling out money to states without actually expecting results? A competitive grant system is a refreshing approach after NCLB flowed down the drain.

As with all political issues, there are multiple claims for and against any given program. This includes Head Start and Race to the Top, which is why I asked if they work?

Because I can go search X is a failure/X is a success and get tons of hits for both each claiming the other is wrong.


I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

There are simply too many variables in education to absolutely state that Xprogram is a success while Yprogram is a failure. Unfortunately, human experiences, aptitudes and any number of other variables all attribute to a child's success (or not). I've been involved in the field for more than 15 years as a teacher and administrator, have read countless books, studies and attended even more training sessions and conferences and have yet to find the panacea method that will ensure the success of all children.

My personal belief, based upon real-life experience is that Head Start works. That doesn't mean that Mom can drop little Johnny off at the center and he'll magically be transformed into a straight-A student throughout his life. It's one tool in a very large tool chest.

Personally, and this comes from having taught in classrooms in S. Korea, Japan and the U.S., the biggest impact on a child's education is parent involvement. The biggest reason for programs like Head Start and Title I, Part A to exist at all is that children from low-income backgrounds are statistical poor performers and this all plays into socio-economic issues that have no obvious correlation to education but still effect it.

I really appreciate your contributions to this discussion.

I think that the biggest factors in a student's success are parent involvement, cultural value of education, and classroom discipline. I also think that college isn't for everyone and that there should be more encouragement for students to look into becoming apprentices in various trades instead of a near universal push to get everyone to college.

Amaya wrote:I think that the biggest factors in a student's success are parent involvement, cultural value of education, and classroom discipline. I also think that college isn't for everyone and that there should be more encouragement for students to look into becoming apprentices in various trades instead of a near universal push to get everyone to college.

The apprenticeship thing brings up an interesting story I hear on NPR. Apparently the trade apprentice system is alive and well in Germany.
In my state, vocational technology training is free (depending on income) until 21 years of age.

One of the biggest failings in the education system that I have seen is a lack of career guidance. The sad fact is that most schools use their counseling staff as test administrators more than actually providing guidance and counseling services.

Yes! Testing has gotten completely out of hand. I don't know about other states, but the obsession with the TAKs test is absurd. Everything is taught around passing the stupid test. I also agree with the lack of career guidance, I had no idea what I wanted to major in getting out of high school, all I knew was that I was expected to go to college.

In the UK we start formal education at least a year before you do in the states and we dun lern gud.

It would be the same as teaching your children to read and write (and maybe even do some maths) before they went to school - they'd have a huge advantage over other children whose parents had not taught them to read and write before they started school, and they'd be able to concentrate on other aspects of schooling (such as gaining factual knowledge or improving skills, rather than trying to learn to read and write from scratch).

Bottom line... scare tactics work, and is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. In my mind, that's all this is.

GG

Amaya wrote:
I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

You have had a statement, in this thread, from a parent who confirmed it worked. You would rather hear statistical evidence/media citation yet when presented with such, will immediately go looking for another partisan statement elsewhere that says otherwise.

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. We can send cameras into space and people will still cross their arms, call it a guvmunt conspiracy and insist that it's not enough evidence the earth isn't flat. We can pull rock up out of the earth and test it to prove it's a couple of million years old and some folks will insist it's a lie from satan. You are one of those people, you already have such a preset partisan slant on everything that might be presented to you that the only reason you are demanding 'evidence' is so that you can try and assault anything presented.

That is trolling. That is close minded. That is being small.

That others might care to continue to indulge you in discourse over this and any other political debate, when you are so utterly and totally set to one belief and point of view, speaks far greater of their patience than your actual willingness to alter your position. I think they are wasting their time.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. We can send cameras into space and people will still cross their arms, call it a guvmunt conspiracy and insist that it's not enough evidence the earth isn't flat. We can pull rock up out of the earth and test it to prove it's a couple of million years old and some folks will insist it's a lie from satan. You are one of those people, you already have such a preset partisan slant on everything that might be presented to you that the only reason you are demanding 'evidence' is so that you can try and assault anything presented.

Too true.

Anything is refutable if you want it refuted. 35% of Americans think that Jesus rode to school on a dinosaur.

Really, the Romney counter should be pretty easy.

"This is Julia, she's 23, and she has a job.

Under Obama, she wouldn't."

Repeat at 27 and 42.

"This is Julia, she's 65, and is now eligible for Medicare and Social Security.

Under Obama, these programs would have been gone."

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Amaya wrote:
I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

You have had a statement, in this thread, from a parent who confirmed it worked. You would rather hear statistical evidence/media citation yet when presented with such, will immediately go looking for another partisan statement elsewhere that says otherwise.

Really, I should rely on a single individual's experiences to justify Head Start? Are you serious?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Amaya wrote:
I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. We can send cameras into space and people will still cross their arms, call it a guvmunt conspiracy and insist that it's not enough evidence the earth isn't flat. We can pull rock up out of the earth and test it to prove it's a couple of million years old and some folks will insist it's a lie from satan. You are one of those people, you already have such a preset partisan slant on everything that might be presented to you that the only reason you are demanding 'evidence' is so that you can try and assault anything presented.

That is trolling. That is close minded. That is being small.

That's really cute. You are such a great intellectual giant. I am utterly in awe of your flawless argument and superior intellect.


Of course there are people who will refuse to believe anything, no matter how great the factual support for it. The funny thing is, Head Start doesn't have that. There are no proven lasting benefits and any gains from it are described as moderate to begin with and are minimized by 2nd or 3rd grade. Hell, according to the study it showed reduced math skills in children who had gone through Head Start. At best the program offers minimal gains, at worst it offers temporary benefits that are not improved upon because of America's poor public school system.

Frazzled wrote:Cradle to grave reliance on Obama, er ok. but he's not a socialist right

...

Better that than to rely on men. We don't have a good historical track record for looking after women's interests. And they certainly can't turn to Republicans.

biccat wrote:Really, the Romney counter should be pretty easy.

"This is Julia, she's 23, and she has a job.

Under Obama, she wouldn't."

Repeat at 27 and 42.

That's a much more difficult argument to make since it doesn't turn on specific policy outcomes. Sure, jobs might follow from Romney's policies, but healthcare coverage will follow from Obama's.

biccat wrote:
"This is Julia, she's 65, and is now eligible for Medicare and Social Security.

Under Obama, these programs would have been gone."

Romney voiced support for Ryan's proposal regarding Medicare, which would make such an argument very difficult to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
It would be the same as teaching your children to read and write (and maybe even do some maths) before they went to school - they'd have a huge advantage over other children whose parents had not taught them to read and write before they started school, and they'd be able to concentrate on other aspects of schooling (such as gaining factual knowledge or improving skills, rather than trying to learn to read and write from scratch).

Unfortunately, at least in the US, often times that opportunity isn't available due to the absence of accelerated courses prior to high school (and even then they're often rare). If you go to public school, generally you are held to the standards of the districts lowest common denominator at any given grade level, with obvious exceptions for learning and behavioral disabilities.

Not that learning to read, write, and do math before going to school isn't good, it just isn't necessarily as big an advantage as you might think. Further, it can have the effect of inculcating children with a sort of "coasting" mentality due to the ease with which they complete their assigned work.

Either way, the Finnish and South Koreans make us all look stupid.

biccat wrote:Really, the Romney counter should be pretty easy.

"This is Julia, she's 23, and she has a job.

Under Obama, she wouldn't."

Repeat at 27 and 42.

Prove it.

Unlike the website's statements, this is nothing more than conjecture based on a biased viewpoint, not actual facts. So proving it will be impossible, but I will enjoy watching you fail.

generalgrog wrote:Bottom line... scare tactics work, and is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. In my mind, that's all this is.

So stating provable facts is now "scare tactics"? What nonsense.

Melissia wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Bottom line... scare tactics work, and is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. In my mind, that's all this is.

So stating provable facts is now "scare tactics"? What nonsense.

Hey, reality scares republicans. It has a proven liberal bias.

You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women, even though the only things in the story that would solely affect women are fair pay and birth control (even though that sort of helps men as well).

The only issues are whether or not the programs work and do their benefits outweigh the costs, should employers be required to supply birth control, and who is paying for all of this?

There are some people who are extremely anti government and live in constant fear of it growing, but the government is a necessity and as the economy grows so will the government.

Ok, Lets not supply birth control, and have more people with kids that are a drain on society.