Sacramento Head Start Alumni Association

States Have Weak Preschool Track Record

May 20, 2003

ALEXANDRIA, Va., April 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- State-funded preschool
programs often fall short of Head Start, according to a new, nationwide
study by Yale University that cites states' uneven and often inferior
track record in preschool and predicts poor outcomes for Head Start in
many states if it is transferred from federal to state control.

The study, authored by researchers Walter S. Gilliam and Carol H.
Ripple, examines how state-funded programs operate as a predictor of likely
outcomes if Head Start were handed over to the states. Earlier this
year, President Bush (news - web sites) proposed transferring Head Start,
a locally run, comprehensive preschool program for poor children, from
federal to state control by block granting the program and moving it to
the Department of Education (news - web sites)(TZF2). Currently, the
program is run under the Department of Health and Human Services (news -
web sites) and operates locally within the communities it serves. Head
Start is up for reauthorization this year.

The study found that while some states have strong preschool programs,
many states don't come close to measuring up to Head Start. For
example, while Head Start programs must meet rigorous standards (news - web
sites), many states have few or even no program guidelines. And despite
an emphasis on accountability from the Bush Administration, few states
have systems to evaluate effectiveness. By comparison, Head Start
programs are required to assess learning regularly in all domains of
development; are monitored periodically with a system that identifies programs
that need to be improved; and participate in a government-funded
longitudinal study on the program's effectiveness. Furthermore, all but three
states fail to mandate the level of comprehensive services found in
Head Start.

"We found that the quality of state-funded preschool programs varies so
much that turning Head Start over to the states would be like playing
Russian roulette with the futures of America's children," said Walter
Gilliam, lead-author of the study. "Head Start must stay consistently
strong, well monitored, and focused on all of the comprehensive needs of
the children and families it serves. Currently, most states do not have
the infrastructure necessary to implement, maintain, and evaluate the
success of a large, comprehensive child and family program such as Head
Start. While some states might do well, most states would likely do
poorly, and several states would be disastrous."

The study analyzed how states currently manage federal dollars for
preschool and disproved several assumptions that have been asserted as part
of the Head Start devolution debate. Assumptions and highlights of the
findings include the following:

Assumption 1: States have a desire to address children's development
and school-readiness needs. Before federal funds were allocated, only 10
states provided preschool or childcare services. Today, despite the
availability of federal funds, several states still don't run preschool
programs, nor do they supplement existing federal preschool programs that
operate in their states. The report finds that many states do not have
the desire or commitment to implement and sustain comprehensive, early
childhood programs.

Assumption 2: States will maintain Head Start standards of quality and
comprehensiveness. When compared with Head Start, most states provide
far fewer services aimed at promoting children's overall health and well
being, such as healthy meals, doctor visits, and caseworkers (only
three states mandate the level of services provided by Head Start).
State-funded programs are also weak in supporting parents, increasing family
stability and economic self-sufficiency, and facilitating parental
involvement in their children's education (three tenets of President Bush's
plan on education).

Assumption 3: States will design and implement programs that most
closely meet the unique needs of their children and families. Of the states
that currently run state-funded preschool programs, a wide discrepancy
exists between the different services provided and the levels of
success in meeting the specific needs of their children. Further, no relation
was found between the level of children's needs and the quality,
comprehensiveness, or inclusiveness of the program. Whereas Head Start is
administered federally, it is structured so that its centers run locally.
In this way, Head Start maintains national standards while tailoring
its programs to identify and meet individual child and community needs.

Assumption 4: States will provide better oversight, leading to high
quality services. Currently, very few state-funded preschools have
undergone quality evaluations-a requirement of all Head Start programs. And
the scope and quality of mandated services provided by state-funded
preschools vary widely among states, even though nearly all of are run by
the state's Department of Education. For example, unlike Head Start,
state-funded preschools have varying class sizes and teacher-child ratios;
only half offer English as a Second Language services as comprehensive
as Head Starts' (26 percent of Head Start children live in homes where
English is the second language); most states don't provide
transportation; and few offer home-based programs.

Assumption 5: State programs will be more effective than Head Start at
enhancing children's school readiness. Government after government
study has shown that Head Start students are ready to learn. Yet less than
one-third of state-funded preschool programs have been evaluated for
their effectiveness. But of those that have- with methods typically not
as rigorous as Head Start's- the findings are mixed and generally no
better than those found for Head Start. It has been found that states are
particularly weak in demonstrating positive impacts on parental
involvement or child health - two major focuses and strengths of Head Start.

Assumption 6: States will combine funding sources to implement full-and
extended-day programs that benefit working families. If Head Start
funds were combined with the states' current childcare subsidies,
especially in states that have invested little in promoting comprehensive school
readiness for their children, Head Start could be morphed into nothing
more than half day child care for the poor, failing to meet both the
educational needs of the children and the child care needs of their
struggling parents.

This study is in press and scheduled for publication by the end of the
year as a chapter entitled, "What can be learned from state-funded
preschool initiatives?: A data-based approach to the Head Start Devolution
Debate" in The Head Start Debates (Friendly and Otherwise).

For more information, a complete copy of the study, or to interview
lead author Walter S. Gilliam, please contact Tracy Zimmerman at
202-518-8047 or tracy@publicinterestpr.com




http://www.usnewswire.com/