In regards to your article in the New York Times, I feel that you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you been in a Head Start classroom? Do you know what the curriculum is like, what the teachers have to do, or anything about the families? Is everything you hear rumors? I am a Head Start teacher with a Bachelor Degree in Early Childhood Education and the children I have served are not as you put it "fading out" in the public schools. I am located in an Elementary Building and my previous students are doing as well as, if not better then other children their age. We are qualified teachers, and not paid for it. We go above and beyond. We have to be their parent, nurse, and teacher. We go to their homes, have parent teacher conferences, do individual assessments, lesson plans, follow standards and prepare each child for Kindergarten. Before you make rude comments about Head Start, get your facts straight.

A PROUD HEAD START TEACHER!!!!

I strongly agree with you that Besharov and Call's evaluation of Head Start is very inaccurate. I strongly agree with you that sufficient funding for Head Start is essential to maintain its quality. I also agree that having at-risk children attend one year of a preschool is not sufficient to overcome the environmental factors that these children face outside their program. Ideally, there should be at least a birth-to-five Head Start experience. Fortunately, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 helps to make this happen.

However, we differ with respect to the quality of Head Start programs. You suggest that there is a great deal of variability in Head Start quality, but two recent, very rigorous nationally representative studies of thousands of children in Head Start programs -- the Head Start Impact Study and the Family and Child Experiences Survey paints a different picture. These studies report that Head Start classrooms are consistently of good quality across the nation (see page 3-13 of the Head Start Impact Study report at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_fi... and page 45 of the Family and Child Experiences Survey 2000 report at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/faces00_4thprogres...).

I wanted to follow up with what Ben Allen at NHSA points out. I think it is simply wrong to say that Head Start quality is uneven or that the research doesn't demonstrate strong outcomes. Both research and HHS's own reporting proves that this is not true. Head Start quality is first rate.

Sure we can always make improvements. But those improvements cost money including hiring BA teachers and more intensive academic and social services. In short, I am hopeful folks will look at the research, visit programs, and truly understand the program before making assumptions.

As long as I have seen Doug B. he seems to be against every government program unless it has something to do with people getting married. I wish Doug a happy marriage and I hope that he continues to seek funding for this important cause. But he has unfortunately become a professional witness against every program that benefits low income children so to me his credibility is not very strong.

Joel

I have and always will affirm the quality of Head Start programs. There are a few programs that do not go above and beyond the federal regulations of Head Start compared to the many programs that do. However, it is not on those few that the quality and effectiveness of Head Start across the nation can be defined. I must agree with Mr. Kirp that unfortunately, some of our Head Start children do transition into poor quality public schools that do not support structured IEP's, parent involvement and culture along side of best practices. NCLB forced many of our schools to put aside the vital building of a child and replaced it with meeting a national standard. The lack of reform is harshly stated towards Head Start in the "Davids" article, substantiating it with the elimination of the NRS. Do people know how many times the NRS had to be "reformed" and yet still remained to be biased? Bottom line, who on earth would even consider a standardized test for four year olds!? The NRS developed from NCLB, enough said. A "383-site randomized experiment"...that term in itself is cause for alarm. Our children are not lab rats. For 40 + years, communities nation-wide have depended on Head Start for early screenings. special needs services, promotion of early brain development, school readiness, parent involvement and parent training. Federal Review Teams have been responsible in monitoring the implementation of these regulated areas. Times have changed so drastically, if not traumatically from 40 years ago when grandmothers were the first teachers of Head Start. Today, serious social, economic and health issues/effects have evolved and Head Start has evolved along the way with these demands. Head Start budgets are very limited, but Head Start staff have always dedicated themselves and managed a program through limited means to achieve the best results for the communities' children and families. Staff continue to be educated, certified, degreed, trained and compassionate to meet the best interests and best practices of our future generations. Rural, city, minority, tribal, urban, migrant communities have supported, worked along side, applauded, but most importantly depended on Head Start's effectiveness throughout the years. Come on "Davids" do your own research before standing behind a shameless experiment.

You got an important argument wrong here, though you are not the first. The argument that "a major cause of that fade-out is that Head Start students are more likely to go on to poor quality public schools than their control peers" is based on a logical fallacy. The basis for unbiased estimates of Head Start's effects is a "control" group that is equivalent to the Head Start treatment group. The fact that these researchers have discovered their control group is less likely to go to poor quality schools proves that it is not equivalent. Why do they go to better quality schools? Because they are from better off families, in better off neighborhoods, etc. So the "fade-out" need not be due to the differences in schools but occurs because the control group was never comparable in the first place and over time the differences between the two groups (and their families and neighborhoods) compound the bias so that effects appear to fade out.

Head Start advantages "fade-out" by second grade? The children who are attend Head Start are, high risk from either their special needs or enviroment infulences or both. So if these children test equal to their peers at the middle elementary age, has Head Start worked? Our goal at Head Start is to support the disadvantaged families. Yes, I said families; to help a child to become truely successful we must help the families learn to encourge the child to want to be successful. Is their any question out there that a good portion of students at Ivy League school are legacys? No, for their family helped them get there. To say to me, a Head Start Educator that these children average out in 2-3 grade tells me that we have been succeeded in our goal of preparing high risk children and families to succeed in school. Bottom line, these opponents of Head Start keeping selling the line that these children leveling out proves in my opinion that Head Start Works! So thanks for inadventently proving our point!

My name is Patricia T. Allen, and I work at Rubye J. Johnson Head Start Child Development Learning Center in Sumter, SC. I am not a teacher. I am employed as a clerk-typist, and I work in the "Education" office. I also work in the "Administrative" office when needed.

As a clerk-typist, I perform various duties. Amongst these duties include; entering data into the computer concerning individual profiles of each student, typing materials that are required by my supervisor, compiling and distributing paperwork to classrooms, greeting visitors and taking incoming calls, handing out school supplies to teachers when needed, attending meetings, and calling for the children over an intercom to load up for their buses. I also work in the "Literacy" room when I am needed. The "Literacy" room is where the children go for story time, singing, and learning dancing for performances.

I enjoy my work thoroughly because I like children and especially like well, educated children! They are little people, but sometimes I wonder if they are bigger than me! Ha! Wow,what a way to go "Head Start"! These children are moving and learning. Smarter than whips?
You better believe it.

Have you been in a "Head Start" classroom? Well, if you haven't, you probably would enjoy it. These classrooms are filled with learning tools. The teachers here are professionals, and each student's quality work is shown along the halls where there are creative, colorful, descriptive drawings that are displayed on the walls.

Let's face it. It takes money to keep organizations like "Head Start" going. These children are learning how to operate computers, how to draw, how to spell their names, how to be respectful to others, how to read, and how to sing and dance. It costs to fill these rooms with educational supplies. It costs to pay good quality, caring, and intelligent teachers. It costs to transport these children to and from school. School buses have to be kept maintained, and that's expensive. The children have to be fed well nourished and well planned meals each day. Nutritious snacks are also given out to students daily.

Do "Head Starts" need a stimulus plan? What do you think? I say go for it. This is America. This is 2009. We are moving forward, not backwards. Yesterday is gone, and there is a whole new generation coming up. Let's give them a "Head Start".

Thank you President Obama! I not only like children, but I like you too!!!

Very Sincerely,

Patricia T. Allen