The program helps make poverty bearable. Gives the kids something to look
forward to away from the house. Gets kids medical and dental earlier. Gets more
meals into families.
Nonsense is about all I have to say about using my tax dollars to support
illegals. Any way you cut it they expect the state to support their children.
Don't lecture me about how the poor little children are in need,
they would return to wherever they came from if they didn't have all these
benefits. Then we would have enough money to care for American Citizens.
Early intervention in the lives of at-risk youth/children is key to helping them
reach their full potential and is invaluable to society as a whole. re;KathyDid the article mention illegals?It did mention they were
working FIVE jobs in an effort to support themselves. According to the
CONSTITUTION any child born here is a U.S. citizen. A lump of coal
in your Christmas stocking this year!
We seem to be headed for an Austrralian "Rabbit-Proof Fence" stolen
generations problem, where the attitude of the establishment elite is to get
poor (read: minority) children away from their parents for as long as possible,
on the grounds that it will improve their performance. Can genuine all-day, 16
hour preschool be far behind?This despite the fact that Head Start,
an enormously expensive program, has little data to back up the claim that it
helps. The Head Start Program is 46 years old and was significantly expanded 30
years ago. There should be plenty of data available already to prove whether it
works or not, not just small, unrepresentative samples from two programs. We've
spent over $170 billion on Head Start, including $8.1 billion this year
alone.And yes, "Truthseeker," illegal aliens benefit from
these Head Start programs, and probably make up a disproportionate share of its
beneficiaries. Even if it's just the parents who are illegal it is a handout to
them, not to mention basically a subsidized day care program.
I'm from the camp that says kids are better off at the young age at home. I am
fortunate to be a "stay at home" mom. We've alway struggled
financially, but we feel it's important for the kids to be nurtured at home. My
kids never went to preschool, but our oldest skipped kindergarten and the rest
are doing well and have a great zest for learning. In fact, our youngest can
already read on a first grade level, but won't be old enough to attend
kindergarten until next year. But my sister is a Head Start teacher
and her kids went there. It worked out good for her, because she got to be in
the same building with them during the day. All of my friends and
relatives' kids went to preschool. A lot of the kids learned bad words and bad
behavior from the other kids. But it comes down to this. Freedom of
choice and what's best for kids. Some parents are not able to be at home with
their kids, so a preschool or daycare is what works for them.My
concern is that the government should never mandate preschool. I think
ObamaCare might do that.
With the parents making barely over 13k a year the children are not going to be
staying home. They will be in a day care center, in friends or relatives houses
or left alone while the parents try to make enough money to feed them. Having a
parent home with these kids is great, in theory, but it does not take into
account the fact that these families are barely surviving. Try
walking in their shoes awhile. It just might give you a different outlook and
wont even have to have the three ghosts of Christmas help you along.
"With the parents making barely over 13k a year the children are not going
to be staying home."Your argument is irrelevant and off-topic.
The argument isn't about daycare, good or bad. The question is whether Head
Start actually benefits children long-term. Most of the data says it doesn't.
The studies mentioned here are from two unrepresentative situations. We have 30+
years of data on the benefits of Head Start - with many Head Start
"alumni" now 34+ years old - and most of it is unimpressive.There is also the separate issue of whether children who are illegal
immigrants, or whose parents are, should be receiving extra government spending
on their behalf. For their lawbreaking parents it basically amounts to
government-subsidized daycare, justified by the dubious claim that it will help
them later in life. This is subsidized daycare that American children above
poverty level don't qualify for.
Low performing centers are going to have to meet higher standards? Sounds like
the first page has the critique of the program nailed. The question always
comes down to: Can government make a difference? It definitely makes a
difference in the lives of those who pay for the teachers, staff, facilities,
their retirements. The recipients? Not so much.
Income level should never be an indicator of poverty. Poverty is an attitude.
Many families have higher incomes with school loans, medical bills, car repairs,
etc, but they have lower usable income without the food stamps and housing
benefits the government hands out. Those with the higher income also do not
receive charity gifts at Christmastime. Categorizing income level does not
present a full picture of the situation. Those without the poverty attitude
somehow provide their children with what is needed to succeed in life without
all of the handouts. One's home life and genes are better indicators of
successfully producing productive, positive offspring. Education is only part
of the equation.
Education is the key to lifting oneself out of poverty. I believe, however,
that the parents have a much greater impact than do programs or teachers. My
wife or I review our three daughters school work on a daily basis. They all
understand our commitment to them and their education. It amazes me how many of
their friends, however, tell our daughters that their parents don't care about
their grades.The elementary school our girls attend reports that 80
percent of their students come from homes in poverty. So it also amazes me how
many of them are dropped off in new cars, and how many kids are playing with
their smart phones. Apparently education and poverty are also about setting
We can't rely on the government to fix all of our problems. I am not a believer
that head start or preschool truly makes a difference as I've seen it up close
and personal because I have a special needs child. As a people we need to be
responsible for our children and ourselves. The government is not the answer.
Early intervention is always a good idea and funding education is also. It
bothers me that the article quotes the Heartland Institute as if it is some
unbiased research center. They have a track record of supporting Charter
Schools and vouchers. They also believe climate change is a myth and supported
the Phillip Morris Co. to prove second hand smoking doesn't cause health risks.
Sally, poverty is more than an attitude, for many it is a reality.
Unfortunately, for many families it is a cycle they can't escape. It does seem
to be learned and therefore can be broken. The best way to break it is through
education. Those with a high education get out. They can then become productive
tax paying citizens. It would be wonderful to save these kids through the
ideal home with both parents but that isn't realistic.
My teaching background indicates strongly that our Head Start children are often
2nd - 3rd generation headstarters. So if it is such a wonderful program why are
the participants repeaters? It doesn't become an interruption for the cycle of
poverty; it is more like it is creating an expectation for government giveaways.
It isn't the school that is making the difference--it is the educational
environment. That can come just as well at home. I pulled my oldest out of Head
Start after a few wasted weeks and taught her myself. When she started
kindergarten her academics tested at second to sixth grade level. We didn't have
much money, but I knew how to create an educational home. There might always
need to be preschools for families who won't or can't provide an academic home
environment. However, if we really want to help the children, we need to help
the parents so the children can grow up with enough money to succeed. Instead of
sending every preschooler to school, offer the parents literacy, English, and
job skill classes--and classes on home preschooling. It's easy to create an
academic home and doesn't take that much time or money if you know how to do it.
Then the parents can earn more and provide the child with learning in a loving
home, not in a building with strangers. It also costs the government less in the
Apparently charity never faileth, except among LDS, especially in Utah and
especially when it comes to helping children. I'm really disappointed at the
comments on this site whenever it comes to anything that deals with using taxes
to provide charity. I am a recipient of many of these government programs, as
are my sisters. While my father was in law school, the first in his family to
attend college, and my mother supported him by working 2 and 3 jobs, my sisters
and I benefitted from amazing preschool programs. My oldest sister is now a
tenured professor and a world renowned scholar at a prestigious university, she
has two kids and owns a home; the next sister is a former Hollywood executive
who is finishing her first novel. I am a physician in training with a PhD and
have three children. When people ask my mother about us she credits, in part,
government subsidized preschool and after-school programs. She had to work to
support us while my father's law practice got off the ground--not until I was in
elementary school--but it was a lot easier with great support. I believe in
If parents have the ability take care of their kids (ie. feed them, clothe them,
teach good values and proper social behavior, teach them ABCs and 123s, and read
to them), then they may not need a preschool. Some choose to still send their
kids to preschool anyway, and that's their business, not mine. But I for one
think kids do better emotionally, mentally, and even socially when young
children can spend their days with their mothers. That's just me and some
politically incorrect stats I learned of before I became a mom.But I
think it's a good thing that there are preschools and programs available for
those who need them. It's a safety net. It's tough being a parent, and
especially hard when parents have to work multiple jobs to support family. I also think a lot of people do depend too much on big sis gov't. It's
not just preschool but conventional public school as well. And it is true that
immigrants (legal and otherwise) are coddled by public school system. I've
witnessed it constantly. Our local school is 70+% immigrant. I'm all for legal
immigration, but not for permanent entitlements.
Why is government preschool charity? Who said public school couldn't start at 3
instead of 5? The problem is there is no preschool for all. You only
get if you are the most in need. That could be speech delay or special needs
diagnosis, language other than English in the home, or some family stress. For
instance a child who is ward of the state in a foster home would get a spot
before a child raised by both parents. But if every parent got their child in
public preschool that wanted it scores of private efforts would fold and this
would not be an issue of charity. Preschool is just a few hours a
day. Plenty of time to be with mom. Some kid's need time away. Some mom's need
time away too. The real point of preschool and kdg is to follow directions, sit
still, take turns and resolve disputes with peers. You can't get that at home
unless blessed with brothers and sisters in abundance. It's great if they know
letters and can write prior to kdg, but it's really not the most important
Why do people have children if they can't afford it?Government
caused a fifteen trillion dollar debt. What makes anybody think they'll get
children out of poverty?
Truthseeker, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if
their parents don't speak English and have low job skills they are illegal as we
don't give green cards to many that fit that description.Thank you
for the lump a coal my father who is a legal immigrant always talked about
getting lumps of coal and how much it meant to him as a child. He even gave them
out at Halloween one year. Also our family is still in the position
of sponsoring members of our extended family from our country of origin. And
since one of them had cancer and a heart attack recently we give to their
children. If we weren't forced to pay to support illegals we would have more
money to help the poor. We do give to the Perpetual Education Fund
to help support families and children in their own countries raise themselves
and their countries out of poverty.
Bravo to the Obama administration for asking for the study. We have been paying
for the Head Start program for decades and I for one, want the best bang for my
buck. Not sure how many of you got to the "illegals"
conversation. Many minorities are not "illegal". Baloonatic, I'm not
sure how you came to the 70% immigrant number. I've looked at the latest census
numbers and that can't be correct. And technically we are a nation of
immigrants. Just found out my grandparents came from Denmark...illegally. Oh
my! That means my mom was an anchor baby. Please remember people, our
kids are less educated than other developing countries. We are falling behind.
And those countries...pay for their kids education. Again...I'm more than happy
to pay for public education but I want my monies worth.