"We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. (snip).We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."
How's that worked out for the American people Mr Obama? How many lines have you gone through, cutting wasteful programs to save the American people some money? Any? In fact, Obama has not only not done what he said he'd do, but he's added close to $6 trillion to the deficit, taking the debt up to a whopping $16.4 TRILLION! He also hasn't submitted a budget for 5 years now, so there's been no accounting for where the 4 consecutive+$1 trillion annual deficits have gone....
Well, seeing as Obama is a little bit busy at the moment destroying his country with his attack on the 2nd Amendment and granting blanket amnesty for over 12 million ILLEGAL immigrants, I've done some leg-work to help him out. It seems that the Head Start program has proven to be an abject failure and cutting it would save at least $8 billion per year.
So, what is the Head Start program? Well, here it is:
Head Start is an $8 billion per year federal preschool program, designed to improve the kindergarten readiness of low-income children. Since its inception in1965, taxpayers have spent more than $180 billion on the program.The USA government is essentially using $8 billion per year to babysit 'low-income' children on behalf of their party-going Mammas, who've had a big night out and need to sleep in. It was meant to 'ready' these kids for school, but a study have proven it's done NOTHING for this cause. And the study results have been hidden for FOUR years and were released the Friday before Christmas.....for minimal impact.
Are the results any surprise? Another Liberal 'throw-money-at-the-problem-rather-than-admit-the-cause' pet-project, at the expense of the tax payer. And the cause? Low income usually = low IQ, and no amount of money is going to fix illiteracy and stupidity.
The study found that:
"Head Start has little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of its participants.
The study also revealed that Head Start failed to improve the literacy, math and language skills of the four year-old cohort and had a negative impact on the teacher-assessed math ability of the three-year-old cohort."But, that can not be! Surely it's all a bunch of lies to make the 'low income' Baby-Mammas look bad.
And so what is the government's response to the findings? Guess, go on, I dare you. Give up?? Don't, just think like a Liberal....
The government's response is that the program needs more money to work. Not content with 48 years of proof that it's a failure can surely be overcome with a bit more tax payer dosh. By golly-gosh we'll make this program work even if it bankrupts us! And not to worry - more money has already been assigned through the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill to the tune of another $100 million.
The Head Start program doesn't need more money - it needs to be put out of its misery.
|IQ averages - African Americans fall under the Africa demographic!|
‘Twas the Friday before Christmas, and while most Americans were enjoying time with family and friends, the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were stirring quietly about, preparing to release its long-overdue evaluation of the Head Start program.
Head Start is an $8 billion per year federal preschool program, designed to improve the kindergarten readiness of low-income children. Since its inception in1965, taxpayers have spent more than $180 billion on the program.
But HHS’ latest Head Start Impact Study found taxpayers aren’t getting a good return on this “investment.” According to the congressionally-mandated report, Head Start has little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of its participants. In fact, on a few measures, access to the program actually produced negative effects.
The HHS’ scientifically-rigorous study tracked 5,000 children who were randomly assigned to either a group receiving Head Start services or a group that did not participate in Head Start. It followed their progression from ages three or four through the end of third grade. The third-grade evaluation is a continuation to HHS’ first-grade study, which followed children through the end of first grade.
The first-grade evaluation found that any benefits the children may have accrued while in the Head Start program had dissipated by the time they reached first grade.
The study also revealed that Head Start failed to improve the literacy, math and language skills of the four year-old cohort and had a negative impact on the teacher-assessed math ability of the three-year-old cohort.
Based on this track record, HHS and Head Start devotees should not have been surprised to learn that the results of the third-grade evaluation were even worse. If the impacts of Head Start had all but disappeared by first grade, how could they suddenly reappear by the end of third grade?
Not only were the third-grade evaluation results poor, so was the department’s handling of the study. HHS sat on the results for four years. All that time, taxpayers were kept in the dark while their tax dollars continued to fund a completely ineffective program.
HHS had finished collecting all the data in 2008. Despite persistent prodding by members of Congress, the Department did not make the report (coyly dated October 2012) public until the Friday before Christmas. The timing couldn’t have been better if your goal is to get minimal attention.
Surely HHS was not eager to release yet another report showing that the feel-good Head Start program doesn’t work. But numbers don’t lie.
The third-grade follow-up study found that access to Head Start had no statistically measurable effects on cognitive ability, including numerous measures of reading, language and math ability.
The evaluation also examined the program’s effect on social-emotional development. It found that children in the 4-year-old group actually reported worse peer relations in third grade than their non-Head Start counterparts.
There was also no statistically significant effect on teacher-reported, social-emotional development of children. Alarmingly, there was a negative effect on the 4-year-old cohort. Teachers reported “strong evidence of an unfavorable impact on the incidence of children’s emotional symptoms.” Moreover, Head Start also failed to improve the parenting outcomes and child-health outcomes of participants.
The bottom line: Washington’s 48-year experiment with federal preschool has failed to deliver long-lasting, positive developments for its participants. Still, many in Congress argue that the way to fix this is to increase funding for Head Start.
And that’s exactly what they did in the Hurricane Sandy relief bill. It contains $100 million in new funding for Head Start – ostensibly to provide funds to Head Start centers in the Northeast affected by the storm. According to the Senate appropriations committee, that $100 million will be divvied up among 265 centers—an average of more than $377,000 per center.
Head Start fails children and costs taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money every year. And it’s just one of 69 federal preschool programs.
Head Start doesn’t need more money. It needs to be put on the chopping block. If Congress remains intent on funding preschool, it should at least refrain from relegating low-income children to underperforming Head Start centers. Far better to let these kids take their “share” of Head Start funding to a private preschool provider of their own choosing.