what works, versus what doesn't

[Azazello1313]

so recently the results of a study commissioned by HHS came out about the effectiveness of head start. what they found, basically, is that it basically has no impact whatsoever beyond first grade. putting money into head start always seemed like a pretty good idea to me, but it certainly seems like the results just aren't there. the federal government spends $10 million per year on this program.

 

in comparison, look at the latest department of education study on the DC voucher system, finding that voucher-receiving students were reading more than two grade levels ahead of the randomized control group who had remained in public schools.

 

obama campaigned on spending money smarter, saying stuff like, “We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and we’ve got to make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less.”

 

I'm not really suggesting cutting head start, but it seems like it needs to be made to work better. I certainly don't think throwing more money at it is justified until and unless it demonstrates more positive results. meanwhile, stuff that actually does work, well maybe that ought to be getting more support. yet somehow I think it's a lot more likely we'll end up throwing more money at the stuff that doesn't work and less money at the stuff that does.

[detlef]

It is certainly my hope that each and every program is evaluated for efficacy. There is certainly no shortage of instances where programs that seemed logical and well intended just didn't create the desired result. It can seem cold blooded to pull the plug on them but, at some point you do. It's not unlike realizing at what point defense money delivering diminishing returns. Same story.

 

On one side, you're going to be accused of turning your back on kids on the other you're going to be accused of needlessly exposing us to dangerous attacks. However, if the money isn't getting done what it needs to, neither of these are true.

 

Now, that said (and I hate to do this because I haven't had the chance to read the entirety of either of those links), I've read enough partisan crap written by the Heritage Foundation that I'm not going to assume that whatever they're talking about is actually worth a crap. Who knows, maybe it is.

[Azazello1313]

Now, that said (and I hate to do this because I haven't had the chance to read the entirety of either of those links), I've read enough partisan crap written by the Heritage Foundation that I'm not going to assume that whatever they're talking about is actually worth a crap. Who knows, maybe it is.

 

well here's a link from a left-wing pro-early ed think tank. their analysis starts off:

 

The next few weeks are probably going to be rocky ones for the Head Start community. Results released today from the Impact Study show that children’s gains from participating in Head Start, documented in a 2005 installment of the study, do not last through the end of 1st grade.

 

that sounds like a pretty sober assessment. of course, like true believers, they then interpret that as an indicator we need MORE head start, more money, etc. read through it and you kinda have to sympathize, and maybe they're right, but it seems like we're already making a pretty big committment, and the results just aren't there.

 

here's another, older study:

 

...early education does increase reading and mathematics skills at school entry, but it also boosts children's classroom behavioral problems and reduces their self-control. Further, for most children the positive effects of pre-kindergarten on skills largely dissipate by the spring of first grade, although the negative behavioral effects continue. In the study, the authors take account of many factors affecting a child, including family background and neighborhood characteristics. These factors include race/ethnicity, age, health status at birth, height, weight, and gender, family income related to need, language spoken in the home, and so on.

 

in other words, you learn both how to read and how to raise hell, but a "head start" is useful only for the latter ability.

 

I dunno, I think all of this in general just reinforces my opinion that, particularly with younger kids, it comes down almost 100% to parenting -- good, bad or indifferent.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Azazello1313

[Ursa Majoris]

I dunno, I think all of this in general just reinforces my opinion that, particularly with younger kids, it comes down almost 100% to parenting -- good, bad or indifferent.

This, and all the denial in the world isn't going to change it.

[detlef]

well here's a link from a left-wing pro-early ed think tank. their analysis starts off:

 

 

 

that sounds like a pretty sober assessment. of course, like true believers, they then interpret that as an indicator we need MORE head start, more money, etc. read through it and you kinda have to sympathize, and maybe they're right, but it seems like we're already making a pretty big committment, and the results just aren't there.

 

here's another, older study:

 

 

 

in other words, you learn both how to read and how to raise hell, but a "head start" is useful only for the latter ability.

 

I dunno, I think all of this in general just reinforces my opinion that, particularly with younger kids, it comes down almost 100% to parenting -- good, bad or indifferent.

could very well be true and to the last point...yup

 

This, and all the denial in the world isn't going to change it.

and yup

Edited January 22, 2010 by detlef

[WaterMan]

Poor USA

 

[Duchess Jack]

it comes down almost 100% to parenting -- good, bad or indifferent.

 

I can buy into that.

[Chavez]

in comparison, look at the latest department of education study on the DC voucher system, finding that voucher-receiving students were reading more than two grade levels ahead of the randomized control group who had remained in public schools.

 

obama campaigned on spending money smarter, saying stuff like, “We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and we’ve got to make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less.”

 

What's interesting is that in the book Freakonomics they did a study that indicated the best indicator of academic success in a situation where there was a voucher lottery (due to limited slots, funding, etc) was PARTICIPATION in the lottery.

 

Ergo, unless you can find a way to mandate parents who are concerned about academic success and involved with their kids, one might argue almost all money spent is getting thrown down a toilet.

[westvirginia]

What's interesting is that in the book Freakonomics they did a study that indicated the best indicator of academic success in a situation where there was a voucher lottery (due to limited slots, funding, etc) was PARTICIPATION in the lottery.

 

Ergo, unless you can find a way to mandate parents who are concerned about academic success and involved with their kids, one might argue almost all money spent is getting thrown down a toilet.

 

I <3 chavez! Would that all schooling was separate from the state, sigh, a dreamy fantasy. If the state's only involvement was to run a voucher system.

[Chavez]

I <3 chavez! Would that all schooling was separate from the state, sigh, a dreamy fantasy. If the state's only involvement was to run a voucher system.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with abandoning mandatory public education; I think it's a great thing.

 

I know that one issue I have with vouchers here in Milwaukee is you have public schools held to "No Child Left Behind" and testing mandates, whereas private schools have been able to skate with little-to-no oversight. Not to mention that private schools don't HAVE to accept problem students, public schools do.

 

Private/voucher vs public isn't necessarily a level playing field.

[westvirginia]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with abandoning mandatory public education; I think it's a great thing.

 

I know that one issue I have with vouchers here in Milwaukee is you have public schools held to "No Child Left Behind" and testing mandates, whereas private schools have been able to skate with little-to-no oversight. Not to mention that private schools don't HAVE to accept problem students, public schools do.

 

Private/voucher vs public isn't necessarily a level playing field.

 

I would say you could make them ALL voucher, tell them they have to accept any student who can pay. You'd have good schools for involved parents of good students, lousy schools for parents of students who didn't care (it would just work out that way) and effective alternative schools for involved parents with problem kids. But I think it would work better than what we have, the best teachers could get to the best schools, so on and so forth.

[Chavez]

I would say you could make them ALL voucher, tell them they have to accept any student who can pay. You'd have good schools for involved parents of good students, lousy schools for parents of students who didn't care (it would just work out that way) and effective alternative schools for involved parents with problem kids. But I think it would work better than what we have, the best teachers could get to the best schools, so on and so forth.

Not the worst idea.

[yo mama]

What's interesting is that in the book Freakonomics they did a study that indicated the best indicator of academic success in a situation where there was a voucher lottery (due to limited slots, funding, etc) was PARTICIPATION in the lottery.

 

Ergo, unless you can find a way to mandate parents who are concerned about academic success and involved with their kids, one might argue almost all money spent is getting thrown down a toilet.

Exactly. Because participation evidenced the kind of mentality that was willing to work for something. Spending money doesn't create that kind of mentality; it probably creates the opposite.

[BeeR]

Exactly. Because participation evidenced the kind of mentality that was willing to work for something. Spending money doesn't create that kind of mentality; it probably creates the opposite.

Careful. That almost sounds like you're advocating AGAINST the welfare state/mentality which has worked oh so well for decades.

[yo mama]

Careful. That almost sounds like you're advocating AGAINST the welfare state/mentality which has worked oh so well for decades.

Welfare, in its traditional sense, is a good thing: a temporary safety net to help tie over an otherwise productive citizen during a rough patch, and our collective protection and support of the Nation's most vulnerable. I'm not sure when good liberalism got off track, but it did. Not that modern "conservatives" aren't lost in their own ditch of incompetence these days. Frankly, the core values of both parties are admirable and it's a shame those values have been abandoned.

[BeeR]

Fantastic post, although I have to disagree w/you on the core values thing. Hell - WHAT values?

[Perchoutofwater]

Welfare, in its traditional sense, is a good thing: a temporary safety net to help tie over an otherwise productive citizen during a rough patch, and our collective protection and support of the Nation's most vulnerable. I'm not sure when good liberalism got off track, but it did. Not that modern "conservatives" aren't lost in their own ditch of incompetence these days. Frankly, the core values of both parties are admirable and it's a shame those values have been abandoned.

 

Wouldn't you agree welfare is better left to charities and men of the cloth than to government officials trying to purchase their seats.

[yo mama]

Wouldn't you agree welfare is better left to charities and men of the cloth than to government officials trying to purchase their seats.

I don't think its a one or the other kind of deal. Charities should do what they can. But government must be do what no one else is capable of. The problem is that there are more in need than what charity alone can handle, and the government has become too accustomed to doing things that others should and can do for themselves. And it cuts across all socio-economic lines; it's not just an issue of food stamps and unemployment benefits. For example, don't think for a second that the bulk of our military spending isn't a form of corporate welfare.

 

Moreover, government needs to approach its form of "welfare" with an eye towards getting a return on investment. I don't mind so much if government is spending money employing people to build a public works infrastructure project that will save us money over the long haul, or provides a continuing benefit (like hiring an army of new IRS agents who would pay for themselves and then some). But blindly pumping cash into quick-fixes (like extending unemployment befits) is a bad investment of the public fisc and hurts us all in the long run. Bailing out AIG was a terrible investment. The point is some kinds of projects can't be undertaken by charity. Ideally, government just needs to be more selective in picking which projects are worth investing in. Unfortunately, the government doesn't operate ideally.

Edited January 27, 2010 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

Fantastic post, although I have to disagree w/you on the core values thing. Hell - WHAT values?

 

What they actually SAY they believe is what I think yo-mama was indicating. Not their actual core motives of getting re-elected and increasing their power.