Does Head Start Need More Work?

   

Does Head Start Need More Work?

As a Head Start Teacher I will not lie. I think the program needs more work. Things change very year paper work, the curriculum, staff, rules and regulations most of all the age of our parent’s or parents in general. The school system doesn’t really acknowledge their sister sites and makes them feel displaced even though they may work hard then the centers in the actual school system. Teachers that have been in the program are not properly trained when new items are presented then are expected to train new teachers entering the program. Staff is trained on things and then changes are made and have to be retrained in the middle of the school year. Consists, structure and communication is the key.

The government wants so much out of the program and I think they are overlooking the main point. It is said that most of these children aren’t getting what they need at home. Most of our children’s parents are young and don’t know any better. Most of them have been through a cycle they’re parents where young when they had them and so where they’re parents and so on. They are still children themselves and are still learning.

 The environments most of the children grow up in they are taught to survive. So when they enter the program we are spending much of our time dealing with unruly, rude, angry, sad, and depressed children. Not all of the children have behavior problem, but a lot do. We have to create a lot of social interactions. We have to do a lot of activities working with the children on expressing themselves verbally appropriate and not being aggressive when angered. You would imagine that children have a large family, but still aren’t able to interact with their peers age appropriately. People call them a product of their environment. At the age of three, four and five I would say yes. They are treated as little adults fending for themselves, in an adult environment and conversations. Children come to school and are taught the proper things to do and say and it is all destroyed every weekend when they go home. If there is no structure, schedule, rules, or age appropriate development so everything has to be reinforced all over again every Monday.

I feel they she enter the program as early as possible. A child coming in a 4 years of age with behavior problems is only going to get, but so much out of the program. If we can catch them at three works on the social aspect, and cognitive development then when they go to the four year old class they will have already had the social part and are able to sit and focus.

Critics of Head Start argue that the program is inadequately preparing young underprivileged children for elementary school. That is a problem, they say, because Head Start uses billions of taxpayer dollars each year, and should be held accountable if it is not meeting its goals (Head, 2005). Opponents argue that too much emphasis is placed on playtime and other activities of questionable academic merit. If math and literacy standards are not enforced, Head Start will continue to be nothing more than an expensive government-funded day care system, critics maintain (Head, 2005). "As long as it's Play-Dough and growing plants and doing cute things, significant progress won't be made," says Krista Kafer of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank at the forefront of Head Start criticism (Head, 2005)

Because the ostensible goal of Head Start is to give underprivileged children the same developmental advantages as their middle-class peers, critics say it is only logical that those children should be taught reading and math--the types of things they might not be learning at home( Head, 2005). "Letters, numbers, reading to children and having them follow along--these are things regularly taught to children in middle and upper-class homes, but routinely deprived in underprivileged homes," Kafer says. Head Start cannot legitimately claim to give children a "head start" unless that type of instruction is part of its curriculum, critics argue. (Head, 2005)

The above statement is very biased, due to the fact that not all children that are living in middle-class or upper-class areas are doing well in school. Most Head Start students live in poverty stricken areas. The public school that are in their area are poor and don’t have all of the materials they need. Their parents can’t afford to take off to speak with the teacher or become involve in school. Their parents can’t hire nannies of tutor to help watch them or help them. There aren’t able to be put in after school programs or extra-curricular activities to make them become confident or get a better chance. No one looks at these problems they just point fingers. How can you succeed if no one really wants you to? The middle-class and upper-class school get several donations and new books, equipment, uniforms, materials, etc.

Academic standards that have been in place at Head Start for years are too often ignored, opponents say. For example, many critics point to a 1999 reform measure signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D, 1993-2001), which called for efforts to be made to ensure that all children enrolled in Head Start could identify 10 letters or more by the time they left the program (Head, 2005). Such efforts, however, have fallen short of their goal, critics point out. An ongoing government study of Head Start centers across the U.S. has found that the average Head Start student can identify only two letters by the time he or she leaves the program. (Head, 2005)

The statement above is once again untrue and it is also from 2005. I feel the program has come a long way from where it started. So where are the new and updated articles for Head Start? Why isn’t the success stories from Head Start ever posted? Why are they always looking for the worst in Head Start? I have had three you olds enter my class room not knowing a single letter and leaving my class knowing all 26 upper and lower case. Why place the blame? Go to the centers that are preforming better and hold them accountable for their faults and failure not on Head Start as a whole.

In fact, like supporters, Head Start critics cite many different studies to bolster their case. A 1985 study by the HHS "showed that by the time [Head Start graduates] enter the second grade, any cognitive, social and emotional gains...have vanished," writes Darcy Ann Olsen of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "The net gain to children and taxpayers is zero"(Head, 2005).

Can Head Start really be blamed for the decline in the second grade? Should that be placed on the parents, current teacher or their current school? A child will not progress if they aren’t being challenged of being left by the waste side. If they were being exposed to different things then go into a new environment and aren’t exposed to new and exciting things then what do you expect to happen?

Some critics have lamented the fact that lawmakers backed away from a proposed block-grant provision in the 2005 version of the School Readiness Act (Head, 2005). Giving control of Head Start money to state governments would have ensured that underprivileged children were learning reading and math, critics say, because governors could have imposed on Head Start the academic standards of their own state-run government preschool systems (Head, 2005).

Additionally, many critics have touted the NRS as a similarly effective method of making sure Head Start instructors are teaching basic math and reading skills to their students (Head, 2005). The test would identify the Head Start centers that are under performing academically; the government could then decide whether it would continue funding those centers, they assert (Head, 2005).

Head Start advocates have spoken out against the NRS, as well as many other Bush-era Head Start reforms. However, critics say their reactions do not mesh with reality. Reforms like the NRS will improve not degrade, the quality of the Head Start experience, opponents argue (Head, 2005). Academics can be added to Head Start without subtracting anything, they maintain. "There's no reason why you can't focus on health, social development, and school readiness at the same time, and some Head Start centers are already doing that," Kafer says. "The need is for standards that make everybody get in line" (Head, 2005).

Such critics argue that overzealous Head Start advocates--many of whom are critics of Bush--are focusing too much on what they perceive to be negative aspects of the recent reforms without considering how those reforms can benefit underprivileged children (Head, 2005). Bush has proposed that Head Start instructors focus more intensely on teaching basic literacy skills to the mostly three- and four-year-old children who are enrolled in the program. He argued that if Head Start were really dedicated to giving underprivileged children a "head start," it would focus as much on academics as it does on nutrition and social aptitude (Head, 2005).

Head Start advocates--including groups like the National Head Start Organization and the Trust for Early Education--say they believe Bush's suggested reforms are the blueprints for a complete dismantling of the Head Start program as it is currently constituted (Head, 2005).

 By shifting Head Start's focus to reading and math from early-childhood social development, the Bush administration is radically recasting the goals of the program as originally laid out in 1965; they contend (Head, 2005). Edward Ziegler, one of Head Start's founders, says Bush's plan to hold under performing Head Start centers accountable for their academic success misses the point of what the program is supposed to do. "The easiest way to destroy a program is to give it an unrealistic goal and then say, 'Look, it's not meeting that goal,'" he says (Head, 2005).

Supporters maintain that it is ridiculous to use a test like the NRS to evaluate how well Head Start centers are performing based on the reading and math scores of their children when the goal of the program is not necessarily to teach reading and math (Head, 2005). Head Start's value lies chiefly in its emphasis on social and emotional development, supporters assert. Underprivileged children benefit more from the nutritious meals and medical care that Head Start provides than they would from vocabulary lessons and math drills, proponents say (Head, 2005).

Head Start has been in operation for 40 years now and over 900,000 children have participated in the Head Start Program. There are over 19,000 centers in which the Head Start Program operates nationwide. 86% of Head Start students are three or four year olds. In the Head Start Program 31.1% are African American, 31.2% are Hispanic, and 26.9% are Caucasian (Head, 2005). In conclusion I believe the program may not be received well by the government. Let those officials look down on Head Start step into Head Starts shoes. The parents and the children are all pleased with the program and all of it’s wonderful outcomes. We have to remember to; these are stats from 2005 so where are the stats from 2010. Show me the good stats from the program. There is a positive side to Head Start, but why isn’t it shown.

Key Events for Head Start
1965
President Lyndon Johnson (D, 1963-69) creates the Head Start program. Head Start is a free, federally funded preschool program geared especially toward the children of families living below the federal poverty line. The program initially runs on an eight-week summer schedule but is soon expanded to run throughout the school year (Head, 2005).
1974
Several directors of local Head Start centers in and around Kansas City, Mo., form the National Directors Association and hold their first annual conference in Chicago. By the next year's meeting, the group will be known as the National Head Start Association (NHSA). Over time, the NHSA becomes the most prominent Head Start advocacy group in the U.S. (Head, 2005).
1999
Congress passes a law outlining several academic performance standards that Head Start students must meet, including that they be able to identify at least 10 letters of the alphabet. However, the law establishes no universal way to assess those standards (Head, 2005).
2000
While campaigning for president, Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R) causes controversy among Head Start advocates by saying he would like to change Head Start into a "reading program." After Bush is elected president, Edward Ziegler, one of Head Start's founders, writes an editorial in the New York Times criticizing Bush's plan (Head, 2005).
2003
A controversial law assigning control of Head Start's funds to state governments receives support in the House, passing by a one-vote margin. However, the Senate does not vote on the law, and Head Start funding remains under federal jurisdiction. Observers say the Senate shied away from voting on the bill because its members feared an ugly political battle with an uncertain result (Head, 2005).
2005
The House passes the School Readiness Act of 2005. An updated version of the failed 2003 bill does not include the controversial provision transferring control of funds to the states. However, an amendment to the bill, which allows Head Start centers to use religion as a basis for hiring new employees, provokes criticism from groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, which say it is discriminatory (Head, 2005).

Head Start Preschool Program.  (2005, October).  Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Issues & Controversies database.