Our First Meathead President?
David Weigel | May 22, 2007, 3:22pm
This will come as a shock, so grab onto something and steady your nerves: Hillary Clinton has a rotten idea.
Hillary Clinton proposed expanding pre-kindergarten classes to serve all of America's 4-year-olds in a policy address today at North Beach Elementary School in Miami Beach, Florida, providing them with a high-quality early education that studies show leads to higher achievement and graduation rates and higher-earning careers. More than 80 percent of 4-year-olds are currently not enrolled in state pre-kindergarten programs."Every child - not just children whose parents can afford it - should have the same chance to succeed and to fulfill his or her God-given potential," Clinton said. "As President, I will establish universal pre-kindergarten education through a federal-state partnership, based on state flexibility, that ensures every four-year-old child in America has access to a high-quality pre-kindergarten program."
Hillary's plan would expand access to the more than 3 million 4-year-olds who are not enrolled in state pre-kindergarten programs, providing states with matching funds to devise their own programs and requiring that classes be taught by highly-trained teachers.
In other words a national version of
Rob Reiner's Proposition 82, the boondoggle defeated by 20 points in the rock-ribbed conservative empire of California.
Lisa Snell | May 22, 2007, 6:44pm | #
Maybe we can go for the Boston UPK program.
http://educationweak.blogspot.com/2007/05/upk-boston-vs.html
"Boston preschools falling far short of goals, study says
Teacher quality, site safety faulted
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff April 7, 2007
Boston's public preschool and kindergarten programs are hobbled by mediocre instruction, unsanitary classrooms, and dangerous schoolyards, according to a first-ever study of the programs.
The quality of instruction and facilities in 70 percent of the classrooms, the Wellesley Centers for Women study said, is inadequate to achieve the school system's primary goal: To get the children, most of whom are black and Hispanic and from low-income families, up to speed by first grade so they are as prepared as their white and Asian peers.
Leaders of the school system, which has spent $7.5 million to add preschool classes the last two years, said they found the results sobering and would launch an overhaul of classroom instruction and teacher training.
The findings of the study, which was commissioned by the school system, also are prompting questions about whether the city, pushed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino, moved too quickly to add preschool classes.
"We ought to know what we are doing, so it's very clear we're not just offering child care, but that we're adding programs of substance and integrity," said Elizabeth Reilinger, chairwoman of the School Committee. "When kids are entering the first grade, they should have a sound footing or be a step ahead, not in remediation."
Menino has touted the expansion of preschool from 38 classes in 2004 to 78 this school year as part of the city's progress in education. The school system estimates it will spend at least $20 million a year on preschool education if it meets the mayor's goal of offering free preschool for all 4-year-olds in Boston by 2010."
The researchers also found that the four-year-olds were sitting in their seats (Like K-12 children) being lectured to and responding to flash cards.
Neu Mejican | May 22, 2007, 8:13pm | #
Mandatory pre-school makes not sense, but that is not what is being proposed.
The program would "provide access" to preschool for those that can't afford it otherwise.
If designed right, this could have an overall benefit for society giving the good-but-poor parents an option to enrich their children's education that would otherwise be unavailable.
Head Start's Lasting Benefits.
Original Article
Infants & Young Children. 18(1):16-24, January/February/March 2005.
Barnett, W. Steven PhD; Hustedt, Jason T. PhD
Abstract:
The benefits of Head Start are under increased scrutiny as Congress debates its reauthorization. How effective is Head Start, and how can it be improved? We provide a current overview and critical evaluation of Head Start research and discuss implications of this research with an eye toward informing debate. There has been a good deal of controversy over whether Head Start produces lasting benefits, dating back to its early years. Our review finds mixed, but generally positive, evidence regarding Head Start's long-term benefits. Although studies typically find that increases in IQ fade out over time, many other studies also find decreases in grade retention and special education placements. Sustained increases in school achievement are sometimes found, but in other cases flawed research methods produce results that mimic fade-out. In recent years, the federal government has funded large-scale evaluations of Head Start and Early Head Start. Results from the Early Head Start evaluation are particularly informative, as study participants were randomly assigned to either the Early Head Start group or a control group. Early Head Start demonstrated modest improvements in children's development and parent beliefs and behavior. The ongoing National Head Start Impact Study, which is also using random assignment, should yield additional insight into Head Start's effectiveness. We conclude with suggestions for future research.
INVESTING IN HEALTH:
THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF HEAD START
Kathryn Anderson
James Foster
David Frisvold1
Vanderbilt University
December 22, 2004
ABSTRACT
Head Start is a comprehensive, early childhood development program designed to
augment the human capital and health capital levels of disadvantaged children. Grossman’s
(1972) health capital model suggests that early investments of this type should have lasting
effects on health outcomes. This research evaluates the impact of Head Start on long-term health
by comparing health outcome and behavioral indicators of adults who attended Head Start with
those of siblings who did not. The results suggest that there are long-term health benefits from
participation in Head Start and that these benefits result from lifestyle changes.
Neu Mejican | May 22, 2007, 8:19pm | #
PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 1 July 2005, pp. 144-152
The Brookline Early Education Project: A 25-Year Follow-up Study of a Family-Centered Early Health and Development Intervention
Judith S. Palfrey, MD*,{ddagger}, Penny Hauser-Cram, EdD§, Martha B. Bronson, EdD§, Marji Erickson Warfield, PhD||, Selcuk Sirin, PhD¶ and Eugenia Chan, MD, MPH{ddagger}
* Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
{ddagger} Division of General Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts
§ Boston College, Lynch School of Education, Boston, Massachusetts
|| Brandeis University, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Waltham, Massachusetts
¶ Steinhardt School of Education, New York University, New York, New York
BACKGROUND.: Clinicians, scientists, and policy makers are increasingly taking interest in the long-term outcomes of early intervention programs undertaken during the 1960s and 1970s, which were intended to improve young children's health and educational prospects. The Brookline Early Education Project (BEEP) was an innovative, community-based program that provided health and developmental services for children and their families from 3 months before birth until entry into kindergarten. It was open to all families in the town of Brookline and to families from neighboring Boston, to include a mixture of families from suburban and urban communities. The goal of the project, which was administered by the Brookline Public Schools, was to ensure that children would enter kindergarten healthy and ready to learn.
OBJECTIVE.: Outcome studies of BEEP and comparison children during kindergarten and second grade demonstrated the program's effectiveness during the early school years. The goal of this follow-up study was to test the hypotheses that BEEP participants, in comparison with their peers, would have higher levels of educational attainment, higher incomes, and more positive health behaviors, mental health, and health efficacy during the young adult period.
METHODS.: Participants were young adults who were enrolled in the BEEP project from 1973 to 1978. Comparison subjects were young adults in Boston and Brookline who did not participate in BEEP but were matched to the BEEP group with respect to age, ethnicity, mother's educational level, and neighborhood (during youth). A total of 169 children were enrolled originally in BEEP and monitored through second grade. The follow-up sample included a total of 120 young adults who had participated in BEEP as children. The sample differed from the original BEEP sample in having a slightly larger proportion of college-educated mothers and a slightly smaller proportion of urban families but otherwise resembled the original BEEP sample. The demographic features of the BEEP and comparison samples were similar. The young adults were asked to complete a survey that focused on the major domains of educational/functional outcomes and health/well-being. The study used a quasi-experimental causal-comparative design involving quantitative analyses of differences between the BEEP program and comparison groups, stratified according to community. Hypotheses were tested with analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of variance techniques. Analyses of the hypotheses included the main effects of group (BEEP versus comparison sample) and community (suburban versus urban location), as well as their interaction.
RESULTS.: Young adults from the suburban community had higher levels of educational attainment than did those in the urban group, with little difference between the suburban BEEP and comparison groups. In the urban group, participation in the BEEP program was associated with completing >1 additional year of schooling. Fewer BEEP young adults reported having a low income (less than $20000); the income differences were accounted for largely by the urban participants. The percentage of subjects with private health insurance was significantly lower in the urban group overall, but the BEEP urban group had higher rates of private insurance than did the comparison group. More than 80% of both suburban samples reported being in very good or excellent health; the 2 urban groups had significantly lower ratings, with 64% of the BEEP group and only 41.67% of the comparison group reaching this standard. Overall, suburban participants reported more positive health behaviors, more perceived competence, and less depression. Among the urban samples, however, participation in BEEP was associated with higher levels of health efficacy, more positive health behaviors, and less depression than their peers.
CONCLUSIONS.: No previous study has focused as extensively on health-related outcomes of early education programs. BEEP participants living in urban communities had advantages over their peers in educational attainment, income, health, and well-being. The educational advantages found for BEEP participants in the early years of schooling included executive skills such as planning, organizing, and completing school-related tasks. It is likely that these early advantages in executive function extended beyond education-related tasks to other activities as participants became responsible for their own lives.
The long-term benefits revealed in this study are consistent with the findings of previous long-term studies that indicated that participants in high-quality intervention programs are less likely to cost taxpayers money for health, educational, and public assistance services. The BEEP program appears to have somewhat blunted differences between the urban and suburban groups.
The results of this study add to the growing body of findings that indicate that long-term benefits occur as the result of well-designed, intensive, comprehensive early education. The health benefits add a unique and important extension to the findings of other studies.
Neu Mejican | May 22, 2007, 8:23pm | #
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 24, Issue 3, Supplement 1, April 2003, Pages 32-46
The effectiveness of early childhood development programs*1
A systematic review
Laurie M. Anderson PhD, MPHCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Carolynne Shinn MSa, Mindy T. Fullilove MDb, Susan C. Scrimshaw PhDc, Jonathan E. Fielding MD, MPH, MBAd, Jacques Normand PhDe, Vilma G. Carande-Kulis PhD, MS and Task Force on Community Preventive Servicesa
Abstract
Overview
Early childhood development is influenced by characteristics of the child, the family, and the broader social environment. Physical health, cognition, language, and social and emotional development underpin school readiness. Publicly funded, center-based, comprehensive early childhood development programs are a community resource that promotes the well-being of young children. Programs such as Head Start are designed to close the gap in readiness to learn between poor children and their more economically advantaged peers. Systematic reviews of the scientific literature demonstrate effectiveness of these programs in preventing developmental delay, as assessed by reductions in retention in grade and placement in special education.
Discussion
Extant program evaluations in the field of early childhood education consist primarily of retrospective analyses of nonexperimental data. As a result, the majority of studies included in the early childhood development reviews are classified as “moderate” in quality by Community Guide criteria.[25] It should be acknowledged that study design preferences can reflect disciplinary differences in social science research methodology. An unfortunate consequence of this is that some valuable information from promising research could not be included in this review because of the absence of comparison groups—a study attribute deemed necessary by the Task Force for attributing effects to an intervention program. A useful example is a study of Head Start by the National Bureau of Economic Research. [60] This study, a retrospective analysis of nonexperimental data drawn from the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics, reports on positive long-term outcomes of interest, including educational attainment, earnings, and criminal behavior.
A strong body of evidence shows that early childhood development programs have a positive effect on preventing delay of cognitive development and increasing readiness to learn, as assessed by reductions in grade retention and placement in special education classes. Evidence of improvements in standardized tests of academic achievement and school readiness support this conclusion. A finding of insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness in the areas of children’s behavioral and social outcomes, children’s health screening outcomes, or family outcomes should not be seen as evidence of ineffectiveness. Rather, it identifies a need for additional quality research.
Given the complexities of human development, no single intervention is likely to protect a child completely or permanently from the effects of harmful exposures, pre- or post-intervention. Nonetheless, the strong evidence of cognitive benefits of early childhood development programs is encouraging. We expect that center-based, early childhood development interventions will be most useful and effective as part of a coordinated system of supportive services for families, including child care, housing and transportation assistance, nutritional support, employment opportunities, and health care.
Publius | May 23, 2007, 10:39am | #
It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
