Head Start VS Other Schools
Health and Human Services. "Head Start Impact Study". n.d. Web. 5 February, 2011.
Zigler, Edward and Susan Muenchow. Head Start: The Inside Story of America's Most Successful Educational Experiment. New York: Basic Books. 1992. Print.
The US Department of Health and Human Services has recently completed their 10 year research study of Head Start and the impact it has on children. In this study, it lays out a case study that was done between a controlled group of kids and children from Head Start. This study shows the advantages and disadvantages that children might experience in and outside of Head Start. It goes in depth in each area and aspect of a child's growth. I think this study shows very clearly the hope that this program has given to many children.
Most of the areas that were tested in this study were the basic senses test. As the study came to a close, researchers found that four year old children from Head Start were scoring higher on the vocabulary tests than other four year old children from other programs (Health 4). There were six vocabulary tests that were administered; (1) Peabody Picture vocabulary Test (PPVT); (2) Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) Letter-Word Identification; (3) WJ III Spelling; (4) WJ III Pre-Academic Skills; (5) Color Identification; and (6) Letter Naming. Through these tests, researchers saw a dramatic difference in Head Start children than others (6). Although verbal skills exceeded, math showed no significant impacts. Even though this might not seem too important since these children are only four years old, I do not think that speaking alone will get you very far in life. So why didn't math skills increase in Head Start students as well? Well, Health and Human Services has stated in this study that, "Head Start programs vary in terms of instruction in the key areas measured as part of this study, i.e., early development of language and literacy and mathematics skills." (Health 25). This obviously means that the Head Start programs in the case studies focused more on literacy and language than math. So is subsiding math and receiving more english a smart move? I think it all depends on the child that is in the program. These children come from all different backgrounds and learn at different paces. The Teachers at Head Start Facilities all have their Early Childhood degrees that allow them to work specifically with that age group (Zigler 99).
Other than reading and math, children were studied on their social-emotional development. Children were observed on their behavior, social skills; relationships with teachers, parents and other children; approaches to learning; and school adjustment (Health 15). This study proved to have a different turn of events for Head Start as there didn't seem to be a distinctive upper hand. This study reveals that children who were in the Head Start program were a little more timid and shy when advancing to the next grade. On the similar hand, these children seemed more behaved at home and at school (15). This area of a child seems to be more affected in large crowds of people, which you don't get at Head Start. These classrooms are no more than 20 people and all contained to one property.
The last area I would like to talk about is the health of children. It was clear that the children in Head Start programs had a distinctively clearer respect for health and dental. These children received more dental and health coverage than those who weren't in Head Start programs (Health 18). Edward Zigler tells us that most of the children who are in Head Start have never experienced health or dental benefits that are crucial to every human being for their respective development (28). We can see that Head Start children have a big advantage when it comes to their health and physical development.
So how did Head Start compare to other programs? Human and Health Services states, "On nearly every measure of quality traditionally used in early childhood research, the Head Start group had more positive experiences than those in the control group." (Health 25). But that leaves all of us with some very important questions. Would it be beneficial for children to have two years in a Head Start program instead of one? What processes are being taken to fill in the gaps where these children didn't excel above other program's students (i.e. math or timidness)? Also, if this program is a success, wouldn't more teachers from other schools and programs adopt the Head Start policy? Either way, this study shows us that there are some serious advantages to Head Start.
Hi Josh:
ReplyDeleteI'm impressed by the substantial quality of the sources you found, especially as you tackled potentially one of the most difficult questions surrounding Head Start-- that of its' effectivity. Your exploratory research in many ways confirms my own suspicion: that head-start can give a leg-up to children coming from marginalized backgrounds. At the same time, I think it's interesting that you're wondering over how the program can be improved. (This emphasis is tricky. Improvement in education can be difficult to define, much less track). I'll be curious to see where your research progresses from here. I might suggest referencing the works-cited pages of the sources you've already found, as this can be an excellent way to find new material.
Hey Josh:
ReplyDeleteFirst off I want to say I enjoyed reading your post. I think you are asking really good questions and definitely have good support to make that analysis from. Looking at your MLA works cited entry, everything looks good.
Comparing your extended bibliography entry to the written prompts, I think you pretty much followed the format. Looking at your summary of Health and Human Services source you pretty much encapsulated the main idea. Although I was a little confused when first reading your entry because you had two sources, but I think your Main source the Health and Human Services one and the latter source was something to give you support in your analysis and reflection.
Looking at your analysis of your report, again I think you did a great job. Because your source is a report from the Health and Human Services and it’s a government agency I think it’s harder to determine the author’s rhetorical intent other than to give an objective report to its agency. By using your second source as tool of analysis, you did a great job.
With the reflection part you clearly stated your own thoughts and arguments. You’re diving in deeper and deeper in your topic. With you stating possible problems with the source’s report and asking more and more questions you are definitely on track. One thing that caught my eye in your extended Bibliography and it’s just an idea is when you said “[Head Start is ] focused more on literacy and language than math. so is subsiding math and receiving more english a smart move?”. You can definitely expand on this more, I think possibly researching what child psychologists and development doctors say about this subject might give you more information about this.
Looking at your integration of paraphrase and quotation of your source I think you have a really good balance between your words and ideas from your sources. You don’t use many quotes, but you do use quotes in your entry, which is good cause a lot of people just use all quotations. You have a good balance. One thing I was a little confused though was when you paraphrased and you cited them with just numbers like “On the similar hand, these children seemed more behaved at home and at school (15).” Or “Edward Zigler tells us that most of the children who are in Head Start have never experienced health or dental benefits that are crucial to every human being for their respective development (28).” I was a little confused are those footnotes made by the original author? I think maybe you should include them in your future works cited page. Overall You did fantastic job, and I’m definitely going to try to use what you submitted here as model for my future entries.