Head Start is a good start to revitalizing national education but there is still room for improvement. 

Head Start is a 8 billion dollar federal grant program that provides preschool and other early childhood learning opportunities to about 1 million 3 and 4-year-old children that meet federal poverty guidelines.  When Head Start was first created, as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, the program was designed to help improve the child development and developmental needs of disadvantaged children.

While Head Start has grown slowly since its inception in the 1960s, critics have never been far behind to challenge the programs successes and budget.  Most recently, TIME’s Joe Klein challenged Head Start as a failing to “yield results” and called for the end of the program.  Klein opined that because some studies show that children in Head Start do not see sustained academic and developmental growth after they have finished the program, that the program itself was a failure and a waste of money.  Klein raises some interesting points. First, is $8 billion a year for poor preschoolers a valuable use of the federal government’s money?  Second, does Head Start actually improve academic outcomes long-term? And finally, is there a way to improve the Head Start program or should it just be scrapped as wasteful government spending?

First, is the federal government justified in spending $8 billion a year on preschool education for American’s poorest children?

America provides a system of free public education, usually Kindergarten through Grade 12.  However, most young children often attend a series of private preschool programs before starting Kindergarten.  In contrast, most European countries provide about 2 years of pre-school or early childhood development programs for all young children before the kids begin primary school.  Instead, in America, mostly all preschools are privately run, with average costs of about $3,000 - $12,000 per child per year. 

America does provide limited subsidized preschools at the state and federal levels, usually based on poverty level, and Head Start is one of these programs. But, Head Start only serves about 1 million children a year and in 2010, there were 6.3 million children in poverty.  So maybe the question is not whether the federal government is justified in spending $8 billion a year on preschool programs for poor children, but whether $8 billion is enough to serve the needs of these children.  With potentially 5.3 million children going without adequate access to preschool services every year, it is clear that America’s early childhood education programs benefit those that have the means to access these private programs and harm those without similar access.

But, America is in a recession and the federal government is struggling to allocate money for even well supported government programs, like subsidized student loans.  Before one advocates for expanding a program such as Head Start, it is important to ensure that the program actually works.  This leads to the second question, is Head Start achieving educational and development success among the children it serves?

Head Start’s successes in early childhood development and long-term academic and social outcomes for poor children are disputed.  While there are some studies that highlight the successes of Head Start in terms of keeping people out of prison and leading to higher education rates, other studies, like the Head Start Impact Study show only minimal long-term effects.

Still, many of these minimal long-term effects can be attributed to the weak schools that Head Start graduates will attend upon program completion.  Faced with failing schools, a lack of resources, overcrowded classrooms, and even bad teachers, it is of no surprise that the students targeted for Head Start programs cannot maintain their academic improvements over time because the odds are simply against them.

It’s clear that America has many poor children who go without access to quality preschool programs due to their poverty level and the limited reach of the Head Start program.  Further, poor children who do have access to Head Start often do not see sustained academic outcomes throughout their time in public education. Maybe the true issue is that early childhood education through Head Start is only one part of the process to improve educational and life outcomes for poor children in the United States.  This leads into the third question, can Head Start be improved to ensure effective program performance and long-term benefits or should the program just be scrapped?

Obviously, Head Start should not be scrapped unless the federal government and the states figure out a better way to provide access to high-quality preschool programs for our nation’s poorest preschoolers.  There are too many preschoolers in this country who go without access to early childhood development programs, and while Head Start is just one option, it’s an option that is helping 1 million of these preschoolers.

Still, as with any government program, it is necessary to ensure that federal money is being spent correctly.  In 2007, Congress passed “Improving Head Start for School Readiness,” an act that allows the government to take a stronger federal oversight role of Head Start programs and requires teachers in Head Start programs to hold associates and bachelors degrees.  The Obama Administration has already used its power under this bill to close unsuccessful Head Start programs and provide more funding for programs that were succeeding.  To ensure that federal money is being spent correctly and that children are receiving high-quality preschool education, it is essential that federal oversight of Head Start programs continue.

Finally, the federal government should work to expand access to free and reduced preschool programs for poor children.  Preschool has a profound impact on the educational attainment and development of children.  Further, because most middle-class children have the ability to attend preschool, expanding access to preschool programs for poor children could help close socioeconomic achievement gaps.  Most importantly though, gains made in preschool need to be sustained overtime through strong primary and secondary public education for all students.  American needs to work towards improving its K-12 educational opportunities for all students to ensure that all children have access to high quality education from preschool to college.

----

Amy Baral is a Roosevelt Institute Pipeline Fellow.

Charter schools give students options they might not otherwise have, but they don't negate our responsibility to provide a quality education to all.

As I've explained in previous posts, inter-district and intra-district school choice programs work by creating choices from the existing schools in a school district. A different approach to school choice is the charter school movement.

As most know, charter schools operate as unique public schools within a school district. Unlike intra and inter-district school choice where the schools students attend are just the regular public schools in the district, charter schools are completely independent. Charter schools operate through a charter from the state government, although they receive their per-pupil funding from the school district where they are located. Because they are not controlled by the school district, they are given vast freedoms in return for higher standards of accountability.

Proponents of charter schools highlight the combination of freedom and accountability that they are provided. That allows them to experiment and innovate in ways that are tailored to meet the needs of the student population. As a result, many charter schools have implemented programs such as extended school day, extended school year, tutoring sessions, required athletic sessions, and hands-on experiences. The Harlem Children's Zone's charter schools exemplify this phenomenon. Faced with their students' limited access to health care services, the Promise Academy opened up the Harlem Children's Health Project to provide access to free medical services for its students.

While most charter schools operate based on similar principles -- high expectations, choice, more time, power to lead, and focus on results (derived from KIPP's "Five Pillars") -- not all charter schools are created equal. Opponents of charter schools worry that the choice created by charter schools is not a choice at all. While the accountability mechanisms in place for charter schools do work to close schools that do not meet their legally mandated goals, opponents note that many charter schools perform on par or worse than their public school counterparts. As CREDO's study notes, on math tests, 46 percent of students in charter schools performed on par with their public school peers, while 37 percent performed worse. Still, 63 percent of charter schools are performing at or above the level that public schools are performing.

Click here to buy Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch’s new book on the epic health care reform battle, Fighting for Our Health.

Finally, there's the issue of segregation. Charter schools in urban districts serve an overwhelmingly poor and minority student population, and there is often a higher proportion of poor and minority students in charter schools than in the district overall. This has led some to note that charter schools are creating de facto segregation based primarily on race. Yet while some charter schools cater to specific populations -- a German charter school, for instance, or a bilingual charter school -- this is certainly not a return to life before Brown v. Board of Education. Because charter schools are public, they must accept all students that apply for spots in their classrooms (unless there are too many applications, in which case a lottery must be held). Further, the population of a charter school most often reflects the population of the school district in which it's located. Segregation in schools is a problem, but charter schools are not exacerbating this problem -- they are simply trying to provide a high-quality educational choice for students who may have no other option.

The question this debate boils down to is about choice. If a student's option is to go to a failing public school or take a chance at a charter school with innovative programs, which choice do you think they would make? Parents and students would often rather take a chance with a new and innovative educational program than continue at the same public school that has led to few educational achievements. Charter schools, like inter-district and intra-district school choice, provide an additional educational option for students who have no other choice but to attend public school.

Still, this choice is not enough. Some charter schools have created innovative and effective programs to increase student achievement and success. Other charter schools have failed. But charter schools are not perfect and they certainly are not a panacea for educational issues. In pushing for high-quality school options for all children, the debate shouldn't be about the pros and cons of charter schools, but rather about ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality education. School choice programs, such as intra and inter-district school choice and charter schools, expand educational options for student and families who may have no other choice of schools. But in order to ensure that every child has access to a high quality education, the broader focus should be on widespread public school improvement and reform.

Amy Baral is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow performing legal and policy research on the Boston Public Schools, focusing on access to quality education and school choice. She is also a 1st year law student at Boston University School of Law.