Reference: Support for the “Head Start” Program
I have heard that you have been advised that the IQ gains made by youngsters participating in the national Head Start Program – in operation since its launch by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty program – do not last, and that you therefore intend to vote against proposed additional funding.
Before you follow through on that standpoint, I would ask you consider a few facts and to turn away from those who would freeze funding – an act that would later prove to be costing the taxpayers more in the longer term as I will demonstrate later in this letter.
But first, are you aware of the positives coming out of the Head Start program? Did you know that, according to a UCLA study by Garces, Thomas and Currie (2002) of 4,000 adults followed from childhood, entitled "Longer-Term Effects of Head Start":
Immediate improvements in IQ compared with non-participating children were narrowed over time (note that “narrowed” is not the same as “do not last”);
Those adults were much more likely to finish high school, to go to college and even have higher earnings in their twenties than their non-“Head Start” peers;
African American adults in the survey were less likely to fall foul of the law than those who hadn’t been through the program;
There were also more noticeable positive effects from a younger sibling attending the program after an older brother or sister;
The evidence derived from this study was based on a long period of time, surveying adults where their family backgrounds and environments could be examined in some detail.
Test scores are improved from graduates of the Head Start program – those children are less likely to have to repeat a grade. You may also like to consider that much of the criticism levelled at the program in its early years was answered by legislating to improve the regulation and requirements: the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. It’s also worth noting at this point that the program has never at any time been adequately funded. Although it is indeed a large program, at the time of the study mentioned above it served only about a third of children eligible to be in it.
And what in reality does the narrowing of IQ advantage actually mean? Maybe it is our public schools who are failing to keep that initial momentum going? Once out of Head Start and into public school, important elements of Head Start are now sadly missing; healthcare including mental health and dental care, nutrition and family support services are no longer there for those disadvantaged youngsters. They may not be so far ahead after first grade, but how far behind their peers do you think they would be if Head Start hadn’t given them that initial leg up? Some research indicates that the learning boost resulting from Head Start and/or “More Four” – another pre-school program – is equivalent to around four additional months at school. As a result of the existence of Head Start, fewer schoolchildren need placing in special education programs costing twice as much as standard education. Other studies show that higher standards in math and reading are still seen in third grade.
Unfortunately, it is in the nature of our society to want to limit expenditure on “soft” targets, like this Head Start program, basing the justification on criticism that is possibly unfounded but is certainly ignoring the perceived longer-term gains that have been shown in studies by those qualified to judge, and based on large-scale sampling of adults who have been through the program in their pre-school years. I hope I have at least given you cause to reconsider your position on this program that in my view needs expanding – not squeezing!
Yours faithfully,
(Name)
