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: JohnM who wrote (62719)	5/1/2008 9:32:55 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542009

It's pretty clear the success of the program needs to be built on. The problem was, if I recall, that the children were thrown back in to a system that didn't support their early gains. IMO we need a cradle through high school program to support these children, because their families, who are a huge part of the problem, cannot support them academically (or often emotionally). While such programs may seem expensive, in the long run they turn out productive adults, so it's much cheaper than breeding an under class who cannot work, or who cause crime becausetheir collective intelligence has been stymied wrt more productive avenues of intellectual exercise.

To: JohnM who wrote (62719)	5/1/2008 9:46:39 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542009

From the study by the NIEER- "Several studies demonstrate that educational benefits endure without prolonged intervention. " There is a section in the report titled Fade-out myth that discusses the research (which sounds inconclusive at a quick glance to me, due to the possibility that there are so many factors- social and academic- involved). nieer.org

To: JohnM who wrote (62719)	5/1/2008 11:57:52 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542009

Well there are some references here. I haven't followed all the links yet to recognize if one of them is study I posted about. en.wikipedia.org

To: JohnM who wrote (62719)	5/1/2008 4:03:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542009

I searched again, this time using a better search string, and I found. "...Consider Head Start. The nation's largest federal preschool program has served more than 15 million children since 1965. But according to the Department of Health and Human Services, which assembled the most comprehensive synthesis of Head Start impact studies to date, Head Start has failed to have a lasting impact on child development. These studies show that by the time children enter second grade, any short-term cognitive, social and emotional gains experienced by Head Start children have completely vanished. Head Start children's achievement test scores, IQ scores, achievement motivation scores, self-esteem and social behavior scores are no better than those of their demographically comparable non-Head Start peers. A more recent study by the General Accounting Office confirmed the HHS finding. There is no evidence that Head Start provides lasting benefits..." cato.org "Morning Edition, June 10, 2005 · The results of a new large-scale study of the federal Head Start program suggest that in some areas, the childhood development program produces only minimal, short-term benefits. The findings are from the study's first phase. Program supporters say it's too early to draw conclusions." npr.org "Research Shows Pre-K Benefits Don’t Last Published: April 3, 2008 - Printer Friendly Article Printer Friendly Article - Email Article Send This Article To A Friend In Alabama, many advocates of pre-kindergarten programs are selling a promise they can not keep. They say that for each taxpayer’s dollar a state spends on preschool, the state will reap as much as $7 in benefits from lower special education costs, grade retention and dropout rates, less welfare and prison usage, and more college enrollment and employment at higher paying jobs. The proposed expansion of Alabama’s government preschool program will cost state taxpayers millions of dollars but will generate few of the promised benefits. Advocates back up their claims with cost-benefit analyses and university research that doesn’t tell the whole story. Investing millions of dollars in preschool programs for all children will not result in the extraordinary benefits touted by advocates. Research over the past three decades shows that the benefits low-income children experience from preschool participation are only short-term and will “fade out” after a few years, typically by the 4th or 5th grade. As for middle-class children, there is no positive impact. Not only are there no benefits, a significant body of research has revealed negative behavioral impacts for children enrolled in preschool or day care. Studies published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Ohio State and Stanford University/University of California-Berkley, reported that enrolling children in early childhood education programs can have an adverse effect on children’s social development which persists into later grades. Preschool advocates ignore these findings in favor of a few studies conducted decades ago on small-scale, expensive programs that show long-term impacts for some participants. It should be noted that the results of these programs have never been replicated on a large scale basis anywhere. Many of these advocates ignore the greater body of research including multiple studies on the nation’s largest, longest running preschool experiment, Head Start. Study after study of this $6.7 billion a year program show that whatever benefits are produced by the program fade out within a few years. Likewise, nationwide, state preschool programs currently consume over $3 billion a year without proof of long-term impact. Advocates of universal preschool believe that taking more four-year-olds out of their homes and putting them into preschool programs using government mandated curriculum will substantially improve their education outcomes. Many of the advocates point to Georgia, which has had statewide preschool since the mid-90s as an example of what Alabama can achieve. Interestingly, after a dozen years of having statewide preschool, Georgia’s graduation rate is lower than Alabama’s. According to a recent report from the Alliance for Excellent Education, only 56 percent of Georgia’s high school students graduated last year. A mere 46 percent of students graduated from Atlanta public high schools according to an April 1 report published by America’s Promise Alliance. Of the nation’s 50 largest cities, Atlanta ranks in the bottom quarter. Clearly, expanding preschool does not produce the kind of impact promised by advocates and it is not the answer to improving educational outcomes for Alabama’s children. What is the answer? First, the state should target existing funds to programs that address the needs of at-risk students particularly in the later grades. Overall, American children do comparatively well in the early years compared to their international peers, but begin to stumble in middle school, and decline in high school. Instead of spending millions of dollars to expand preschool programs for middle- and higher-income families, a move that would produce no gains and may actually do harm, Alabama should invest in expanding Alabama’s Reading Initiative and Math and Science Initiative. Second, Alabama should also increase opportunities for all children to attend a good school that meets their individual needs throughout their formal schooling..." alabamapolicy.org