Sharing Web Resources: Part Two--The Politics and Economics of Head Start in the United States

The impact of the government sequester in the United States on the Head Start program seemed particularly relevant to my professional development because not only does it relate to the economics of early childhood services but it also relates to the organization within which I work. By learning about the impact of the sequester on Head Start as a whole and by learning how the Head Start program is impacting children and possibly the economics of the country when these children are grown, I hope to become more familiar with Head Start generally. 

The information about the impact of the US government sequester on Head Start nationally and on Head Start in Illinois helped me think about the number of children affected by the sequester in a new, broader way. In our local Head Start, we served 675 children last year. This year, we are serving about 640. Thirty-five children who would have received services will not receive them. These children are from very poor families. Because we enroll children on a first come first served basis, it seems that children in better circumstances are more likely to enroll first; therefore, among these 35 children might be the children who most needed our services. To me personally, this means I have 17 children in my class instead of 19. This is a welcome change and hopefully, the lower student to teacher ratio will give the children enrolled an even better chance for success. Because I have tended to see this change as positive on a very personal level, I felt like I should look at how this change has affected others.

On the National Head Start Association home page, http://www.nhsa.org/ , it said, “Head Start, Early Head Start and Migrant/Seasonal Head Start programs have had flexibility to implement the 5.27% cut - which amounts to nearly $405,000,000 nationally - but all programs were faced with very difficult decisions about cutting services to children, families, and communities” NHSA, 2013). I live in Illinois, one of the fifty United States. In Illinois, these cuts meant that some programs served fewer children and some programs served children less days each week. As a whole, Illinois Head Start served 1,676 fewer children and served children for 33,410 less days. This is in one medium-sized state out of fifty. To perceive the impact on children throughout the United States, multiply. When children are served fewer days, it also impacts the finances of the teachers and their families. In addition to less school time, the sequester also indirectly impacted how many children and which children are served by causing some programs to decrease or eliminate bus service. This “limits access for the most at-risk families” (from the Illinois Fact Sheet. Here is the link to the fact sheet about the impact of the sequester on Head Start in Illinois: http://my.nhsa.org/download/states/sequestercuts/Illinois%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

 

When there is no sequestering going on, politicians need to know that the programs they support are having benefits to their constituents. Among these benefits are financial benefits. The Head Start impact study was begun in 1998 to test the impact of Head Start on children who started this program at age three and on children who started this program at age four. This study showed a fade out effect in which in the first three years of school the benefits of the head Start program that were seen in kindergarten children were less to non-existent by the time these children reached third grade. The impact measured was academic impact. Because of these results, other studies are being done to determine whether the social emotional benefits of Head Start could be more long term than the academic benefits. Ludwig and Phillips did a study that showed that adults who were Head Start graduates in the early years of Head Start are “now showing long-term outcomes” these adults “had similar short-term benefits to the children in the Impact Study. Ludwig and Phillips used benefit-cost analysis to suggest that the Impact Study itself, when data is analyzed carefully, indicates Head Start is generating benefits beyond what is invested in the program. Here is the link to their study: http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/NYAS-LudwigPhillips-HeadStart-2008.pdf

 

In this benefit-cost analysis, there is a discussion of other research In a study done by Garces, Thomas and Currie of children who attended Head Start around 1980, results showed “that non-Hispanic, white children who were in Head Start are about 22 percentage points more likely to complete high school than their siblings who were in some other form of preschool, and about 19 percentage points more likely to attend some college.” When an African-American group who attended Head Start was compared to an African-American group who had “other preschool experience” it was estimated that Head Start reduced “the chances of being arrested and charged with a crime by around 12 percentage points.” This is found in the last link mentioned on page 260. These results affected me personally and professionally because they show that what we do to help children grow into whole, happy people has a greater impact on them than what is done academically. This is how I already felt, but when the temptation comes to work on academics to the detriment of play time, I will remember this study.
 

Here is a link of a congress woman who visited my classroom this week to find out about Head Start cuts.

http://www.cinewsnow.com/news/political/Congresswoman-Bustos-learns-how-cuts-affect-Head-Start--225097182.html