We all know what Headstart is. It’s the Fedgov. preschool program for low income families. It was began during the Johnson administration as a way to try to give certain lower performing groups of kids a “headstart” so that they could catch up their peers academicaly in school.
What I want to know is, is there any independent study which shows that Headstart works. That is, a study that shows that kids who participated in a Headstart program were more likely than their peers in later grades, sixth through eighth grades, who didn’t attend Headstart.
Of course, I know that a Headstart kid attending Kindergarten or first grade would probable be ahead of a non Headstart peer, but does that advantage last until the middle grades? Is there any study which shows that the advantage continues on?
There have been numerous studies over the years with varying claims and results (and agendas) . IIRC most studies show an initial boost in scores while in Headstart but this boost peters out fairly quickly post Headstart and there is no substantive measurable benefit in achievement vs non-Headstart kids after a few years.
"What I want to know is, is there any independent study which shows that Head Start works. "
Yes, there are good studies showing Head Start has positive short-run outcomes. (IIRC: I looked at this a long time ago.)
As government programs that aid the poor go, Head Start has a relatively good reputation in DC. FWIW. Which is not much, since I am giving my impression of media reports.
A recent long term study, summarized at a website that is selling this report:
It took me a while, but I finally located that GAO study. Thanks for the link, andros.
The GAO study reviewed 22 studies (out of 600) that met their criteria.
Luckily, the studies focus on cognitive outcomes, the subject of the OP; nutritional studies are lacking.
Early studies allegedly show Head Start’s impact. But they were conducted over 20 years ago. Further work is continuing.
The GAO was disappointed that there was neither an a) large-scale evaluation using a nationally representative sample or b) a sufficient number of reasonably designed individual studies that would allow one to draw conclusions about the national program.
The control groups were often not randomly selected: rather they were matched on the basis of socioeconomic characteristics, and their differences were adjusted for statistically.
<Note: if I understand the GAO correctly, they are setting the bar pretty high, IMHO. I’m not sure what sort of study they are hoping for, nor the cost of such a study.>
One study, published in the 1995 American Economic Review (AER) (based on a national sample of 5000) found the following:
“Head Start had positive and persistent effects on test scores and school attainment of white children relative to participation in either other preschool or no preschool after controlling for family and background effects. An increase in test scores was noted for African American children, but these gains were quickly lost, and there appeared to be no positive effects in school attainment. Greater access to preventive health care was reported for white and African American children who attended Head Start or other preschools.”
I’m not sure why the GAO didn’t like that study. I also don’t know how the AER study defines “persistence”.
