Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (62196)	4/28/2008 2:11:18 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 542007

Head Start was massively studied in the 70s and 80s. Well designed research, well analyzed. I've lost track of just where those results are/were, or what the present state of the argument is. At the time, it was simply very badly underfunded. And it's been a victim of the general underfunding of urban programs, urban education programs, urban poverty programs, you name it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (62196)	4/28/2008 2:22:05 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542007

While in college, I worked Headstart one summer as a teacher's aide. (would have been '67 I think). We worked with 4 and 5 year olds, working on really basic skills. We also tested for hearing, optical, speech and dental needs and got them taken care of before school started. I thought it was a terrific program, and felt that a lot was accomplished. I think I've written before about a friend who does early childhood intervention working with mothers and children-- either from birth because the child was born handicapped, or with children who entered the system through a referral from welfare, when welfare determined neglect from ignorance that could be rectified without removal. She had I worked together with a couple of families. Spending on programs that work with very young children and their families is probably one of the ways I would tend to be most generous with tax dollars.