By Fareed Zakaria
Some of the criticism of Obama's program has come from people who worry about the government’s track record in early childhood education. They point to Head Start, the long-standing program that provides this education to disadvantaged children. The Department of Health and Human Services released a study of Head Start in 2010, which was updated in 2012, that concludes that the program’s positive effects begin to fade within a few years. This has led many to call it a failure and urge the government not to throw good money after bad.
But critics are jumping to conclusions about a very complicated subject without really understanding the study – or the limitations of social science research. Three scholars from the University of Chicago and University of California, Davis, have painstakingly explained why it is premature to reject Head Start. They note that many factors may have intervened to erode the early gains in scores. For example, there have been sharp rises in single parent families, rises in non-English-speaking households, and rises in severe health problems like childhood obesity and diabetes. Most important, some studies show that though test scores level out, children who have been through early education do better in their professional lives.
Watch the video for the full Take.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Fareed,
If this spending program actually works, why don't they reduce taxes by the amount of the spending?
If you are right, then "benefit" would exceed the spending. Unless they cut my taxes dollar for dollar for each of these programs, then I don't believe it. They just keep spending my tax dollars...
"my" this, "my" that. You got it big Jim, it is all about you.
ok, Tom so who is it about then? What do I owe you or anyone?
Why do you feel I should have to support anyone but my children? If we all did that, we would need no "help" now would we?
You takers make me sick.
Rob, you are a member of a society. The problem is today people don't seem to have the presence of mind to realize what happens to their fellow citizens impacts them. You are not an island. If your neighbor's house burns down either through spread of fire or change in your own property's value, you are affected. Education is paramount to a society's well being. Producing contributing members of society is far more cost effective than managing them when they become detriments.
Rob is right! From the moment he delivered himself in the hospital and began changing his own diapers, he fed himself, educated himslef, taught himself to drive on roads he paved himself, nobody has ever done anything for him, and he certainly has never benefited from anything anyone else has ever done. I'm not sure how he impregnated himslef to start with, but I wish he'd do it again.
sadtosay, just because we live in a society doesn't mean you have a claim on your neighbor's resources. We're still a "free" society that is ruled by laws, not by need or want.
It's just not reasonable. I am no fan of dumba$$ politicians spending my hard earned tax dollars and something needs to be done about that but let's be reasonable. No taxes could work great! The community would have to get together in some fashion to pool resources. Then after your personal chores and wealth generating activities are done for the day you would have to pave and maintain the roads, take shifts from your activities to educate the children(which means you would have to stay educated on at least a few subjects), someone would have to build the schools and pool more money for electricity and food and what not, volunteers would be needed to police and deal with fires. Now that is the small local community, if you wanted to be able to go anywhere besides your neighborhood you would have to ensure others did the same or coordinate your efforts not only in construction but also in standards of size color of paints used etc..so the roads are usable. Some form of committee would have to be formed on every level just to ensure that roads were passable on a local, city, statewide, interstate levels(government). You would also need some reasonable system to educate every person about local laws so that when you leave your neighborhood you don't accidentally commit a capital crime by walking on the grass or something. This is a five minute message the actual list of activities that each and every person would have to commit to would be more complicated than Bernie Madoff's taxes. This could actually work! The problem is that all of these people who feel like their money is being stolen don't care about anyone but themselves and would never commit the time and thought necessary to make it work. And that, my friends, is why government and taxes exist.
For poor Old Ron,
Why the Liberals Matter
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work.
He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
I'm with Rob. If we all took care of our own there would be no need for these programs. Government should concern itself with the basic infrastructure that benefits everyone. This "It takes a village" crap is for the birds. It is the particular sense of guilt among Americans that we seem to feel that we "OWE" the "Takers" as Rob puts it (or the "Looters" as Rand puts it). If you honestly worked hard for what you have, earned your place, then you can look in the mirror without any sense of guilt. Those who can't are very quick to point the finger at everyone else and say "WE owe..." The concept "sanction of the victim" is defined by Leonard Peikoff as "the willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil, to accept the role of sacrificial victim for the 'sin' of creating values". I for one refuse to be punished because I was successful in carving out my place on this Earth and for securing it for myself and my family.
If society needs 3.6 trillion a year to survive then it's going to die, we cannot keep this up.
Rob – you're right on! You didn't say you were responsible for yourself at birth – you said your parents were! Why do people continue having kids when they have no income or minimum wage? Either they are thinking only of themselves or at heart they are a conservative that doesn't believe in abortion. But either way when they decide to have children they can't afford they place a burden on society and expect that society to pay for them.
Part of belonging to a society is to understand what burdens you place on that society and to take responsibility for your actions!
"What do I owe you or anyone? Why do you feel I should have to support anyone but my children?"
Every child has a right to equal opportunity, which does not just happen automatically, and is somewhat lacking in Ameica today. Every member of our society has a responsibility to spend some of their resources to help try to achieve equal opportunity.
I agree with Tom and would like to answer Rob and any other of the "what's in it for me?" crowd. Why should you care about educating those kids that aren't yours? Why should you educate kids at all if you don't have any? Because those kids you don't want to educate will be running the country when you are old. They will be the surgeon who operates on you, the pilot who flies the airplane you're in, the engineers that design the buildings you live in and the bridges you drive over.... maybe even be the President. Wouldn't you rather those people have a good education? I sure would! Educating ALL our young people makes our country stronger and our future better! That's what's in it for you.
Why do you measure everything in terms of dollars? Is that all that matters to you in life?
Because an educated person is more likely to be able to support themselves as an adult and not kill you for $5.
How is THAT for value to YOU?
I well known that the more educated a society is the more prosperous is, Canada and the Sudan are good examples, Chile and Laos Is more likely you will rob in the Sudan than Canada, is more likely you will die for lack of services in Laos than Chile..
@Rob Its not about who you "owe", we all pay for the things our society provides. Where would any of be without public education (even if you didn't attend public schools, your employees, contractors and/or those who provide services to us – including nurses in hospitals – or make the things we buy probably did)? Where would we be without public roads, national parks, national defence (even those of us who oppose the Bush wars realize we need to defend our nation)? I am thankful everyday that my parents have Medicare and I can know they are receiving the home health they need to stay in their home. And on and on. I would be thrilled if our education system turns out adults who finish high school, get decent jobs that provide needed services on the market, pay taxes, and don't rely on welfare.
Our nation was built on public education – just compare Iowa to places where much of the population – black and white – did not receive adequate public education in parts of the old Confederacy. Thomas Jefferson stressed the need to create a meritocracy.
I fail to understand Rob's characterization of 4-year old children as "takers" because they attend pre-school. How can anyone bear animosity to children who deserve a productive life? What belief system – theist or otherwise – allows us to blame children? Should they be working at age 4 so they are not "takers"? My city just voted to fund universal pre-K and I am proud of that fact.
Headstart is not K-12, 4 year old children are not responsible but the parents are. Maybe we should charge the parents a price much like we do for child support, then the parents would be accountable for their actions. You act like society is a eutopia, maybe you should check out the bad side of town and tell me how you will make people drink who do not want to. You can lead anyone to water but you can't make them drink. There are libraries, charities and tons of resources for early learning, yet none of these resources are even used because the parents of the "4" year old are too busy on their phones or playing games. You claim that 4 year old is more important than all the 4 year olds as the US government is spending money it does not have and is not making ANY attempt to pay off the debt just the interest payments. Yet in your eutopia we can afford anything we want we just have to borrow from the future.
Hi Jim, you're preaching to the choir. Tax breaks usually net around $.75 for every $1.00 spent on them. In the future we should demand that when a social program is cut an equal amount of tax cut is removed. Since tax cuts never approach paying for themselves obviously you need more of them percentage wise to cover social program cuts.
The point of these cuts are to reduce the debt, not reduce taxes.
sadtosay: You said, education is paramount...
Clearly the literacy rates in the US indicate ...otherwise. More than 50 million americans have basic rudimentary reading skills (you know what that is right? they...can read the street signs...) If education is paramount (which I agree, it is probably the single most important and life-altering facet of a person's whole being) then how is it that we invest so much in pretty much everything else, including the rebuilding of iraq, afghanistan, and other -istans (which by the way WE damaged) but education of the US citizens? I can only think of one possible answer...and that is, our economy is based on consumerism. Uneducated (stupid) people make the best consumers. We can sell them anything and they will buy it, even if it is nothing they need, they will buy it with money they don't have....
I'm glad this thread is so popular. The real 'takers' now are the super, ultra, Doctor Evil rich who pushed through tax breaks that don't add value just create debt and pay it back by shutting down social programs. In essense every American, except the 1% of the 1% who benefit, so pretty much all Americans will pay for these ultra filthy rich families' tax breaks. The losing VP in the election even talked about cuts in social security and such. But thank goodness those hard workers, winners of life's fair or unfair meritocracy got theirs' and mine and yours'.
While I am willing to at least partially agree with Jim I don't see his thesis as being quite that "cause and affect" or linear. In the long run, however, Jim does have a point. One would like to think that any government funded social programs' benefits must equal or outweigh its cost or why subscibe to it? The programs overall benefits to society and the programs cost must at some point be compared otherwise the result seems to be we throw money at social issues not because there is any meaningful realized benefit but simply because it makes us feel better and that is wasteful.
My mistake the point was that the date was similar reflection the demographic changes in the country namely the increase of poor hispanics who now represent the majority of participants. When the program began Hispanics were 10%.
I'm still reading the cited study and I came upon the following "....acknowledging that two of us (Ludwig and Miller) are not entirely disinterested participants..." Anyone know their backgrounds?
Again here is the study.
npc.umich.edu/news/events/war-on-poverty-june-conference/gibbs-ludwig-miller.pdf
If they are in academia you should be able to find their CVs. Where to they teach or research?
Any thoughts on this analysis?
"6Ludwig and Miller (2007) estimate the impact of an additional $400 per four year old in Head Start funding in a
county. The dollar value of the decline in child mortality is equal to around $120 per four year old in the county.
They also estimate an increase in schooling attainment of around one-half year per child. Card (1999) suggests an
extra year of schooling increases earnings by 5 to 10 percent. We conservatively assume the extra $400 in Head
Start funding raises lifetime earnings by 2 percent per child, which Krueger (2003) shows is worth at least $15,000
in present value using a 3 present discount rate (even assuming no productivity growth over time). The benefits
would be even larger if we accounted for the fact that increased schooling also seems to reduce involvement with
crime (Lochner and Morretti, 2004), and that the costs of crime to society are enormous – perhaps as much as $2
trillion per year (Ludwig, 2006)."
This is a typical attempt to estimate costs and benefits. Costs to the state are easily quantified. Benefits, less so. It seems like as sound an analysis that can come from this kind of research. The main thing to keep in mind is this is average (mean or median) benefit and won't necessarily help any given individual.
"...track record in early Childhood education".
Well, although all Children are governed by the same rules, that applied to the rich and poor, ironically, there are enormous gaps, when it comes to Schooling them with different TOOLS and OPPORTUNITIES.
As we know, the good future of poor family Children are doubtful, while the wealthy family Children are decided early, before schooling.
So, why we do not have Two kinds of Laws?
It seems, opportunity is the only text and practice, to draft Laws in America.
Who are serving in American Military?
The Hollywood Stars and Actors?
Casino gamblers?
The Disney goers?
Ethnically modern Fascists?
Who are sacrificing precious lives in Iraq, Afghanistan,...???
"Who are sacrificing precious lives in Iraq, Afghanistan,...???"
Working-class stiffs like you and me.
The rich never fight on the front lines of a war that they start and profit from.
So stop, Whiner.
No one is holding a gun to your head. If your kid chooses to join the army rather than going to college, studying something useful and making a living, that's his choice, quit crying about it.
I went to a cheap state school, made payments on loans for 20 years after, and am living a very comfortable life.
If I can do it without handouts, so can anyone.
You just need backbone, and to stop listening to people like the author of this article that wants you to think you are a victim.
I love it - Rob says he did it all on his own! Rob: who paid for your "cheap state school?" We did. Taker.
Hey Rob,guess who paid the interest on your loan while you went to school! Guess who subsidized the low rate you paid for 20 years. Guess who subsidized that "cheap state school"?
You are a regular welfare prince!
@Rob Not only do you disparage 4-year olds who are not productive, now you dishonor our military. News for you – many military men and women do have education (even if not college) and do go on to productive careers as citizens.
And, you went to a state (subsidized) school at taxpayer expense – who's the taker??
I'm behind you Rob. And because I took advantage of that low cost education – community college for 2 year and then 2 years at state university my income is way beyond what I would have made if I'd stayed in the Coast Guard. And because my income is higher I pay:
more in property taxes to support public schools
more in state income taxes to support all of the state tasks
more in sales tax because I spend more
more in federal income taxes
more in social security – where I was "promised" retirement income that now everyone thinks should be means tested
more in medicare – where again they want to means test it
It's time for people to understand they belong to a society and have obligations to that society. You don't just get to place burdens on a society – you also have to pay for that society and that means everyone. So when you say fair taxes I think – ABSOLUTELY – everyone should pay 10%. Just like St Louis – you make $1 you pay $0.01 in income tax. There are no deductions, no filing for refunds – just pay.
Rob says: "I went to a cheap state school, made payments on loans for 20 years after, and am living a very comfortable life. If I can do it without handouts...'
Gee, Rob, do you even engage any brain cells before posting? Do you have ANY idea why your state school was "cheap?" Do you?
Can you say "taxes?" Come on, you can do it T-A-X-E-S.
We do that for poor guys like you. Give you a break so you can at least get a decent job. Otherwise you'd be washing cars somewhere or other. Or maybe joining the military since you wouldn't have any skills to speak of and no other way to make a living (ie, the primary reason people join the military).
Get it yet? Do ya?
> Who are sacrificing precious lives in Iraq, Afghanistan
there is no draft, so whoever either wants to go willingly (to kill at will, to earn money, whatever) or incapable to find another work (= too dumb, because I 'd assume people w/ disabilities are not able)
Saying that Head-Start doesn't help the child in the long run because the good effects wear off in the next few years of schooling is like saying that when a patient is improving in hospital but when he goes home his condition starts to get worse means that the hospital stay didn't help the patient. False logic. The reason kids 'lose the glow' after a fre years means that the resultant teaching a/o cllose attention is no longer there for the child. Head-Start makes each kid feel special, and it works. Later schooling doesn't have that committment so the kids fall back slightly. Many regain their equilibrium in my experience as a long time teacher in poorer areas of LA..........
You're right Eve – they go back to what everyone else has a parent or parents that expect someone else to do their job. Parents used to be involved in teaching their children, ensured they did their studies and behaved in school. Now many parents expect everyone else but themselves be responsible for raising their kids. Led by our former 1st Lady – it takes a village to raise a child because the parents sure don't.
In general people are better off in smaller communities, if the authorities are not dysfunctional. Countries with a smaller and progressive population are more flexible in adapting themselves to social changes. The Scandinavian countries are good examples in Europe.
But we are who we are and we are much bigger. Also we have a COMPLETEY different culture than the Scandinavians. Their socialist government reflects their culture. Would not work in ours. No matter how much the Tea Party complains about us being Socialists. They do not even know the meaning.
And we're getting less mobile by the day...
i wouldn't exactly call a bunch of cow-tipping, pig kissing, apple boobing hillbillies ... scholars.
As a pig kissing hillbilly, I take offense to your insult to traditional American culture and pastimes, (although I am intrigued by this boobing thing...).
Frank Zappa coined many decades ago.The biggest threat to this country isn't terrorists. It is the slime oozing out of your TV set.
I guess it al started with Frank Zapa
There would probably be more social mobility if the gov't did not insist on flooding the jobs market new immigration, be it legal or illegal. The negative impact of illegal immigration on American workers is bad enough but what about the fact the the gov't is admitting unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants from Asia and the Middle East who are squeezing out young Americans from the entry-level jobs they need to start their careers.
every aspect of our social programs are misguided. Should we toss funding hand over fist at early education for the 'underprivileged'? No. What we should do is offer between free and very low cost daycare/early education to children IF THE PARENT/S ARE WORKING. If it's a two parent home and one is not working then they can watch the child.
But our system doesn't allow for that, so the money needs to be spread out over to many families making every program infective at best.
All children need a good education, regardless to what income your family is bringing in. We are all tax payers, and paying millions in the "Public School Systems". All of the public school systems need to be running the schools, starting at grade pre-K to grade 12. This way all 4 year olds will be getting an early education. Our childrens early education should not be determined by who can afford it, who cannot and who quallifies for goverment assistant. All children deserve equal education and the access to it. As a country, the government in it's entirety and including the school systems you need to make sure that you are doing this for the children of our future generation.
The government provides equal opportunity to education for everyone now – or actually, provides MORE opportunities to the low income than the higher income. As far as services from the government, you are already getting what you are asking for. The problems are bigger than you realize. It's not as if teachers discriminate against poor children – quite the contrary it true. The problem is that poor children are not able to understand, absorb, and make connections about what they learn in school as well as their middle-class and well-off peers. So much of a child's development occurs before the age of 4, there is little the government can do to overcome the huge SKILL and knowledge deficits that many of these children have upon entering school, even if they do start in pre-k. It's not even about inherent ability, but more that these children are a product of their surroundings. Many of them are constantly surrounded by uneducated, functionally illiterate parents who themselves were poor students as youths.
Many people knock teachers/educators who work in failing schools. They assume that the reason the schools are failing is because the teachers are not very good at their jobs. However, I would say that's faulty logic. It's an act of compassion to work in a failing school precisely because the children you are working with are SO LOW, you almost cannot believe it. How do you teach upper level reading and math skills to children who do not read above a 2nd/3rd grade level? How do you teach critical thinking skills to children who are not allowed to engage in debate and conversation in the home (they are frequently told to shut up and do as they are told)? How do you help children who cannot keep up with the amount of learning required of them each year? Even when Head Start is shown to be a help initially, all it really does is narrow the achievement gap a bit (not that much really), but there are no cases I am aware of where government intervention has completely wiped out the achievement gap. Do you advocate the government removing poor children from their homes to be raised with middle class and upper class families during their formative years? No one does, but short of that, there is no way to have all children in this country start school on equal footing, and it's not the fault of school districts. It is the fault of parents, poor parents who are poorly prepared to raise their children in a stimulating and challenging academic environment.
What you advocate it impossible. The only way the government could level the playing field is to hold back those who are born to privilege and advantage. I certainly wouldn't support that, would you? You should read this short story to see what the world you are wishing for might actually look like:
http://www.nexuslearning.net/books/holt_elementsoflit-3/Collection%204/Collection%202/Harrison%20Bergeron%20p1.htm
Annie, I think you are overly dramatic. No, the government cannot even out every difference in achievement, but there are many tried and true policies that allow most children to become productive citizens – to neglect this is failure on our part.
To carry your analogy to its extreme, my working out 3 times a week won't make me an Olympian and won't make me live forever, but I still do it because it keeps me at a decent level of health. My salary does not make me rich but I still earn it because it gives my family a comfortable life. No, we do not need to take children out of their home, we just need to provide decent schools and after-school and summer enrichment program and pre-K. How about giving those hard-working teachers smaller classes. Other examples: something as simple as parenting classes for new parents has been shown to reduce abuse. A good friend works for a university visiting school where most parents have not gone to college, teaching children of their opportunities and bringing them on tours of the area state school where he works. All of these programs are positives.
The argument that since something won't achieve super-human results, it shouldn't be done seems over the top to me ...
The schools are open, certified teachers are in the classrooms, the buildings are clean and available, teaching materials may not be new but are more than effective. But if you don't value these things, you will not receive any benefit.
I don't think you undestand what the Head Start program is. A child in preschool or kindergarten doesn't need to value education. That's just silly. IMO it's the parents who need to value the children's education, and many of them simply don't think their kids need to do any better than they did (even though they can see how inadequate their own lives have become, they usually don't attribute it to a lack of education).
Once a child gets into late middle school and high school then your point becomes a lot more valid, but it's simply not the case for 4-5-6 year old kids.
I want to spend my tax dollars on education because above all other reasons, I don't wish to live in a country full of morons.
Well put! I can think of a few other reaons but that's certainly one that most people could relate with.
I wonder who Fareed stole this from?
yeah buddy
Does it matter is still current and viable..
Success of education and the upward (or downward) mobility of the child is primarily influenced by the parents. Many poor families have children who become doctors, lawyers, and other professional successful careers because the parents instilled the value of education and kept the children on task on a plan to better themselves. The parents themselves are not always educated. However, they are aware education is key to having more choices in life.
The same is true for wealthy families who generate offspring that are not contributors to society. They waste the family wealth and not able to move further in education or careers due to floundering waste of time and resources. The key factor is parental involvement and parental values.
Fact: the USA has the worst social mobility in the first world. You are more likely to rise from poverty in every other first world Country on earth.
100% of the children in Headstart at my children's school are Spanish-speaking-only speakers. It's not popular to say. . . but these are the children of illegal immigrants. In addition to the free pre-school, they are also getting free breakfasts and lunches at the school. In the summer, they get free sack lunches. I'm for helping our poor and disadvantaged, but not importing a whole new, giant source. Where does it end? Sorry, I'd rather have the librarian and the learning-disability specialists (laid off in the bad economy) than pay for welfare benefits benefitting parents who shouldn't be in this country.
Head Start was begun to help socio-economically challenged children make the transition from disadvantaged homes to Kindergarten. It is clealy doing that and more. It deserves continuing support.
As if preschool is the reason the kids are underperforming. It's pretty sad when the people in charge of our education system don't know the difference between correlation and causation.
If mom's a crack or methhead, preschool's not going to help you much.
I did my own head start with my grandchildren. As soon as they were able to see the cable screen, I made them watch DVDs on the alphabet and on the numbers, later on I used math DVDs. They had to do this everyday before watching anything else. Best investment ever made, they are doing great.
A word of caution about television. There have been studies in the past several years linking early television viewing to autism. I think the jury is still out, but why take chances? Instead read to the kids and teach them the alphabet the same way the rest of us learned it. The kids learn and get to spend time quality time with people who care about them.
Wow, that's a weak endorsement.
Reminds me of Feinstein's assertion that because the NSF couldn't identify a [statistically significant] correlation with the AW ban of '94 and firearms related crimes that it meant there wasn't an indication that it didn't help.
I wonder where he plagiarized this story from?
The problem I see from every liberal is that the ONLY solutions they propose are to spend more money on problems. Actually solving the problems seems to be secondary. Spending more money on education over the years has not produced improved results. Holding teachers accountable, holding parents accountable and holding students accountable does work. We have to quit playing to the lowest common denominator and set high standards for performance. We have to quit pandering to Teacher unions and eliminate obsolete ideas of tenure. The real cost effective option is to pay teachers VERY WELL and then hire ONLY THE BEST! We have got to get back to a world where choices have consequences and you are held accountable for your actions.
Absolutely resources need to be used wisely, but we do need resources to set high standards. If we truly did pay teachers highly to get the best, it would require resources. It would be hard to set high standards for pre-K if the programs aren't there or, for example, put many kids in class with a teacher at minimum wage with a GED ...
As for teachers unions, I'm not sure how much difference they make – I have lived in very high performing districts and challenges districts and I don't sense there was a difference in unionization ... I believe reasonable people can come to agreement on supporting rewards for high performing teachers, charter schools, etc. – something Obama supports but that needs ultimately to be enacted at the local/state level. Many teachers, though, are looking for good work conditions (class size, support, etc) not just money ...
I'm not a liberal, I'm a diehard fiscal conservative and I strongly believe in effective early education programs like headstart.
From the tone of your posts, I don't think you can truly be a fiscal conservative because you do not understand the difference between spending money and investing money. Education is an investment. Early childhood education is used to invest in those that otherwise would be much less likely to succeed in school. The success or lack thereof is the difference between having people that grow up to be adults that can get decent paying jobs that make them contributors, in the form of taxes, social security, etc., vs being adults that are unemployable or only capable of low-end, minimum-wage jobs.
If you want to make it all about you, it is better to have a higher paid employment base contributing to your social security, than to have only fast food workers that don't contribute enough to give you the retirement you think you have earned.
There's still Social Mobility in America, but we have transformed State Colleges into country clubs for kids from wealthier families – unless you want to take on tens of thousands in debt without knowing if there's a job available after college. I worked my way through college in the early 70's. That's virtually impossible now. Where I could save 80% of my year's tuition with a full-time summer job in a fast-food restaurant, it's hard to save more than 40% doing that now.
I suggest to anyone thinking of going to or sending their kid to college: get them to like and master math. Jobs in chemistry, engineering, accounting, etc. are not flooded with applicants. Jobs in the "Mickey Mouse Majors" like Psychology, Social Work, American Studies, etc. have 10 applicants for each opening. And each one pays accordingly.
Many of the liberal points made on here echo the teachings of Lenin from 100 years ago, they probably do not understand that the argument for the many to take the belongings of the few a distribute them resulted in massive death in both Russia and Germany. Study history more and listen to the "devil of desire" in your ear a little less. What made society civil and successful for the past hundreds of years was the recognition that if you earned something you could keep it. The socialist are leading us to mob rule and property seizure ' for the common good". In Russia the people who had farms were killed by the socialist so the "good" could combine the land into "collective" farms. The doorway to success was closed to all but the corrupt officials. The book Animal Farm would be good reading for the simple minded Occupiers among you.
Fareed Zakaria is just WRONG. My family is a prime example of his error. My grandfather came here from Europe in the early 1920's with just his clothes, but he was a very decent man and he worked hard. He found an excellent wife and had excellent children. And now, his grand children are all professionals, three earning close to SEVEN figures, and one of his great grand children is a PhD from Harvard. So I am appalled to see this article by Fareed Zakaria, whom I think is nothing more than a Muslim malcontent who wants something handed to him for nothing because his work wasn't good enough to earn. Oh, and by the way, if you want an example of successful upward mobility without hard work, just look at Bill "the Thrill" Clinton. He rose from white trailer trash to the White House by simply marrying Hillary and selling out all that is decent to become a champion of the extreme left, which includes malcontents and a host of other people with ever form of social ill imaginable.
I agree with you. I am the son of hard working newcomers who started with nothing and have done well for myself. People forget that they need to assume some accountabilty, work for themselve and not expect "it" to be handed to them.
From the article above................."They note that many factors may have intervened to erode the early gains in scores. For example, there have been sharp rises in single parent families, rises in non-English-speaking households, and rises in severe health problems like childhood obesity and diabetes."
Doen't anybody recognize that single parent families and obesity are generally choices? Also, non-English-speaking households. Really? Nobody recognizes this a drain on our society?
I get it, outdated and far right views in the eyes of many.
What does your grandfather coming to this country as an adult in the 1920's (when social mobility in this country was arguably the highest in the world) have to do with either the lack of social mobility for the current generation or for the argument that good preschool is helpful for future education and social mobility?
The point that the most recent studies has found is that America no longer has that same social mobility that was so impressive when your grandfather came and started here. We need to figure out how to regain that for those born in this country, and decent preschool appears to be a good investment towards that.
Social mobility in USA was the highest in the 1900s, right in the middle of Robber Baron era. 1920 were the end of that era, but still compared to European social experiments (communism and social nationalism), USA was much better off.
You need to spend more: to forget how much you owe. Everybody do that!
After reading some of the responses I had a "vision" of a USA, with everyone armed and hiding in a bunker. Guns pointed at the enemy "takers". United you stand divided you fall, and in many ways you are falling. Third world countries are usually very divided!
There are many ways the program could be revamped. For instance, if a child is already in daycare, they should be receiving the same instruction. It's a big waste of money and time to send them to another location to learn the same thing that is already being taught where they are and that is already being paid for. If they are not in daycare, then they need to be, so the parent can work and get off all assistance. The only ones that would truly qualify is the kids of disabled people.
Hard to believe this guy still has a column.
Has he ever been right?
For some people, it's always about money, and they are always against spending that doesn't result in short term personal, tangible financial gain. This group tends to avoid long term investment, education and doing something just because it is the right thing to do. They often believe they are the hardest working members of society, but do they ever step back to ponder just what sort of world they are working so hard to create?
A growing number of us are convinced that Sarah Palin is the only one who can heal and re-unify our country. But first she must return to her motorhome and resume her cross country tour. She will have to visit cities both large and small, being careful to speak only to real Americans, dispensing her sage advice and folksy, homespun common sense solutions. We can be a great nation again if we all follow the "Palin Path".
Ah here I find people again complaining about spending their tax dollars to aid in educating, providing nutrition and helping with health problems of others. Well, I guess you would rather theh bad nutrition and health problems have more on the streets foraging for survival from trash cans. Or those without educations unable to work. Better yet round them up and put rthem all in prison so instead of only havibng somewhat over 25% of the wortld's incarcerated we vcan have over half.
The system certainly is not perfect. But as for myself, I rather correct problems early on than take the consequences.
Oh, and as for myself. I decided never have children early in life and never have. Employment wise, I have done well. But I was raised in a state orphanage, wghere by rights I had always been told I would have a future as a criminal, drug using alcoholic with a string of children I could not support. @Well, though no children of my own. I voluntarily support about 250 children in 4 countries And am in process of relocating to one of those other countries where people are not as greedy, self serving and condemning of others as are Americans. I also add that I am ashamed of my military service and especially that in Vietnam to serve the likes of what Americans are. As Mohatma Ghandi once said when told of Christians: "What a wonderful religion. I would like to meet one." Yeah, Christians are hypocrites. All talk and no action. I became an Atheist when I was 6 It is this life that counts, not some fantasy after. So I will do all
I can do to better it and in the location most beneficial. Again, the reason I am permanently leaving the US.
Mr. Zakaria refers to many socio-economic ills that are bedeviling American society. These are serious problems that he believes should be considered before Head Start is targeted. But, these problems have been around for a very long time and Head Start was created while these socio-economic difficulties were already on-going. Since Head Start is not successfully educationally compensating for these on-going difficulties, and since these socio-economic problems are not going to disappear any time soon, then Head Start might continue to remain ultimately unproductive in its current form.
Some form of educational compensation or counter-acting force may be necessary due to these problems that could actually worsen as time progresses, but Head Start might not be the answer, anymore; perhaps, it never was the solution. But, it was a good faith effort. It may now need to be replaced by something else.
Keep in mind that if these chronic socio-economic problems could be fixed, something like Head Start probably wouldn't be needed as much. The real problem doesn't lie with Head Start, anyway; it lies with the existence of these chronic societal problems which caused programs like Head Start to be designed and implemented.
Steve
What is more important, being among the first leaving the starting line, or crossing the finish line, even if you were the last to leave the starting line?
The logical falacy here is that the failure of head start is attributed to other things, such as family structure and limited English proficiency households, then shouldn't those be fixed first? If we keep spending on head start without fixing the reason for the failure of the program then the program will fail no matter how much time we give it.
Economically Mexico is better than China and India with all their IT technology, why?
According with Thomas L. Friedman, Mexico will be a super dominant economic power during the 21st century. The true it is that there are more economists in Mexico than in China and India together, and they are working and protecting their own socialist and communist Mexican monopolies over the Mexican citizen’s incomes, they do not care to have more Mexicans living in poverty but they are protecting the Forbes richest men in the world. Our backyard is owned by the Forbes richest men in the world and they know how to make business with USA, legally and illegally, atypical or no atypical business. Their businesses are well protected with money received of Mexican citizen taxes (PEMEX among others), this is happening for years in Mexico.
China and India are discovering that some years ago, and using Mexico as a bridge to the American businesses, it is easier; it is not a surprise that the Mexican politicians are receiving a lot of bribes to do the job well done, break easily US laws, and get in the American market. It is easier that move directly to the American market in which laws are stricter. They can move people, money, items, everything. They are also using Mexico as a bridge to get into LATAM countries.
Mexico has all the free trade agreements that you can image, and USA is its neighbor, all the countries looking to get into the American market or LATAM markets, Mexican politicians waiting for bribes to make it easier, they do not care if they destroy their own Mexican industry if there is business involved. The true is than no country will compete with Mexico easily in this particular communist and socialist Mexican way of doing businesses.
According to the book, Outliers, the problem with American schools is that there isn't enough of it. The large achievement gap between lower socio-economic group children and middle and upper-class children occurs during the summer breaks. During the school year, the poorer kids learn as much or more than the richer kids, but fall behind in the summer. In the summer, the poorer kids watch TV or play all day while the richer kids are forced by parents to read books, write stories, take extra classes and go to museums. Perhaps the achievement gap can be closed by longer school years or offering free summer school to children of low income families.
I am all for each state paying their own way! That means states like mine would stop having to pay for the needs of other states. But.. wait ... as it turns out, of the top ten states that receive Federal money, most are Red states! It looks the blue states are the ones footing the bill for the Red States! Well then – on that note, since I'm from a VERY Blue state, I think it is only best that we give the Red states exactly what they want – no Federal Taxes and no Federal Dollars!
I wonder how long it will take for the Red states to start screaming about the rest of needing to help them out. All we have to do is wait to see how this latest Blizzard affects them. I wonder which one is going to scream for Federal Emergency funding first – Oklahoma? MO? Wyoming? What would they do if we answered them the same way they answered the Sandy Victims in NJ?
Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16.
Let the Sequester Begin.
As someone who was raised in real poverty, not todays definition of poverty which is anyone who doesn't have an iphone 5 and a 50 inch HD TV, and took personal responsbility to pay for my education (tuition) via military service, and then worked full time (to pay rent an otehr bills) while going to college full time, to eventially getting a six figure a year job I , the idea that upward mobility is somehow gone is simply fallacious.
Yes, people do need a helping hand on occassion. But there is a difference between that and a permanent state of dependency, with no acceptance of personal responsibility for ones fate.
Yes, we do live in a village and should be helping our family, friends, neighbors, congregation when it is needed. There is a big difference between that supporting societies leeches ,who want to live a lifetime off other people, through the force of taxation of those who work as opposed to vote.
Is Fareed's accent Indian or Pakistani? Why should anyone listen to a n00b from third world country?
Wow! If the previous comments represent a true cross section of US society, it's no wonder we cant agree on a way forward.
Going back to the original story by Fareed, maybe we should redirect Head Start money into programs that teach parenting skills. That seems to be where the real problem is.
If Headstart is closed down, it will have profound negative consequences on our society. But however, in order for headstart to acuate anything, it needs to be profoundly re-structured and supervised
There are alway at least two sides to every issue. As with any country, the US choses a side. But there are other international sides to the US stance. The other sides of any issue that is contrary to US policy MUST be OBJECTIVELY explained. Explaing the positive aspects of a side that is contrary to US policy is NOT a threat to the US. (Fareed is the only journalist who will explain the positive rationalization of the other side that is contrary to US policy)