Gub'Mint as Employer
Re: Gub'Mint as Employer
No fair there's some fruit hiding in there
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Gub'Mint as Employer
I read an article about “Head Start” recently. This much-praised Johnson-era program is often cited as a “good thing” done by the Federal government to give poor and minority children some of the cultural advantages that they otherwise would lack. Put them in a “culturally enriched” environment between ages 3 and kindergarten…?
Makes sense, right? When I was in college, I was taught that the reason why “disadvantaged” kids did poorly in school was because their home-culture was devoid of the enrichment that is present where, say, both parents are college educated. If we could only “enrich” their pre-school environment the differences would go away. It made perfect sense to me.
The U.S. Federal government spent about $7.9 Billion last year on Head Start, “educating” about a million targeted kids – almost $8,000 each. In fact, since its inception, the Federal Government has spent more than $180 Billion on Head Start.
But what about the results?
The 2010 Head Start Impact Study reported, “the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole.”
“…largely absent…”????
Following the same kids through fourth grade, the HHS concluded that Head Start is ineffective, resulting in “very few impacts … in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices.”
Read that again. Cognitive. Social-emotional. Health. Parenting practices.
This is a “Grand Slam” of failure. It is an unconstitutional, expensive, babysitting service whose only benefit is to employ an army of otherwise-unemployable, marginally educated babysitters.
Yet another example of a Government program that does nothing but keep people on the government’s payroll.
Makes sense, right? When I was in college, I was taught that the reason why “disadvantaged” kids did poorly in school was because their home-culture was devoid of the enrichment that is present where, say, both parents are college educated. If we could only “enrich” their pre-school environment the differences would go away. It made perfect sense to me.
The U.S. Federal government spent about $7.9 Billion last year on Head Start, “educating” about a million targeted kids – almost $8,000 each. In fact, since its inception, the Federal Government has spent more than $180 Billion on Head Start.
But what about the results?
The 2010 Head Start Impact Study reported, “the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole.”
“…largely absent…”????
Following the same kids through fourth grade, the HHS concluded that Head Start is ineffective, resulting in “very few impacts … in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices.”
Read that again. Cognitive. Social-emotional. Health. Parenting practices.
This is a “Grand Slam” of failure. It is an unconstitutional, expensive, babysitting service whose only benefit is to employ an army of otherwise-unemployable, marginally educated babysitters.
Yet another example of a Government program that does nothing but keep people on the government’s payroll.
Re: Gub'Mint as Employer
"Largely absent" means still present for some; should we say that a program is not useful because only some benefit from it? I don't think so.
My church (actually my wife for the last 10 years) uns a mentoring program with inner city children; the program was initiated in the early 70s as a way to promote a relationsip between those in affluent communities and those in the inner city (and to a large part, those who are black and those who are white). Every week, 20 kids are taken by bus to the chuirch where they get tutoring and homework help, a hot meal, and enrichment studies (which can include trips--the class once stidied the Egyptians for several moths before going to the King Tut exhibit). They come from the sort of neighborhood where every kid knows people shot in drive by shootings, a place where some sleep in the bathroom to avoid crossfire; the idea is to spark their interest in something, and to see there is a world outside their ghetto and the gangs. The program administrators also keep close contact with the schools and teachers (who identify the at risk children to participate in it) and followw their progress. It ordinarily runs from 1st-5th grade, but several years back the oversight organization got a grant and our program was chosen to extend it through 8th grade. The expense was fairly minimal (mainly covering the bus costs), but it yielded results.
My wife has kept in touch with many of the children and their parents and some of those who would be otherwise written off are thriving in high school; not all, maybe 25%, but kids who now take school serously and are looking at college. Many of them hold part time jobs and have understood the benefits to self esteem of working, and some now serve as mentors and tutors to kids in their neighborhood. For the most part it is a failure--not all of them benefitted, most showed little if no change. But a few promising kids were given a new chance and are running with it; kids who might otherwise be in gangs and running drugs. A failure? i don't think so. If we can't save everyone, we can do it one child at a time and invenst in multiple programs to do so; either that or buld bigger prisons to hold those who we condemn to the garbage heap.
My church (actually my wife for the last 10 years) uns a mentoring program with inner city children; the program was initiated in the early 70s as a way to promote a relationsip between those in affluent communities and those in the inner city (and to a large part, those who are black and those who are white). Every week, 20 kids are taken by bus to the chuirch where they get tutoring and homework help, a hot meal, and enrichment studies (which can include trips--the class once stidied the Egyptians for several moths before going to the King Tut exhibit). They come from the sort of neighborhood where every kid knows people shot in drive by shootings, a place where some sleep in the bathroom to avoid crossfire; the idea is to spark their interest in something, and to see there is a world outside their ghetto and the gangs. The program administrators also keep close contact with the schools and teachers (who identify the at risk children to participate in it) and followw their progress. It ordinarily runs from 1st-5th grade, but several years back the oversight organization got a grant and our program was chosen to extend it through 8th grade. The expense was fairly minimal (mainly covering the bus costs), but it yielded results.
My wife has kept in touch with many of the children and their parents and some of those who would be otherwise written off are thriving in high school; not all, maybe 25%, but kids who now take school serously and are looking at college. Many of them hold part time jobs and have understood the benefits to self esteem of working, and some now serve as mentors and tutors to kids in their neighborhood. For the most part it is a failure--not all of them benefitted, most showed little if no change. But a few promising kids were given a new chance and are running with it; kids who might otherwise be in gangs and running drugs. A failure? i don't think so. If we can't save everyone, we can do it one child at a time and invenst in multiple programs to do so; either that or buld bigger prisons to hold those who we condemn to the garbage heap.
Re: Gub'Mint as Employer
Actually, Head Start achieves what its main mission is -- it readies kids for school who would otherwise not be ready. However, one or two part-time years of a preschool program cannot overcome the full-time lousy public schools most of these kids end up in, along with the continuing lousy home atmosphere. Head Start is not a panacea -- for it to be effective, it needs to be part of a comprehensive program. It would be interesting to see how the Head Start population that goes to decent schools fares. Also wonder what states have had success in extra assistance to at-risk kids.
Re: Gub'Mint as Employer
The point is this: There is no measurable difference, academically, socially, health-wise, or in parental interest, between the kids IN the program and the kids who do not have the "benefit" of participation.
This is known as FAILURE. It is worse than failure, because that money could be spent on some other boondoggle that might not BE a failure.
If you sent your HS sophomore to an expensive SAT prep course for several Saturdays (wasted time), then learned that the average scores for those who went were substantially the same as the scores for those who didn't, WOULD CONSIDER THE MONEY WELL SPENT?
Only if you are an idiot. Welcome to Government Logic.
This is known as FAILURE. It is worse than failure, because that money could be spent on some other boondoggle that might not BE a failure.
If you sent your HS sophomore to an expensive SAT prep course for several Saturdays (wasted time), then learned that the average scores for those who went were substantially the same as the scores for those who didn't, WOULD CONSIDER THE MONEY WELL SPENT?
Only if you are an idiot. Welcome to Government Logic.
Re: Gub'Mint as Employer
Money well spent? It would be if my kid did better on the test than he would have without the course, it would not be if my kid did worse (or the same). I really don't care about averages.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Gub'Mint as Employer
If it caters to the kids, what are they doing for the parent(s)?and parenting practices