Health and Human Services, “Improving Head Start." HHS.gov. n.p., n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2011.
Puma, Michael, Stephen Bell, Ronna Cook, and Camilla Heid. “Head Start Impact Study Final Report.” 2010. PDF file.
I became curious in my last post as to whether or not Health and Human services had conducted a more recent survey. So I went on to the Health and Human Services web site and found an entire section devoted to Head Start. I also found that most everything that had to do with the survey had not been updated since 2003. Many of the pages I was not even able to access because they were out of date and no longer existed at their previous URL. They did however have a link to the presidential web site where President Obama briefly talks about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In this act Obama provided an additional 1 billion dollars to Head Start and 1.1 billion to Early Head Start. That is a grand total of 2.1 billion dollars. This Act was put into effect in 2009. I had to stop here for a moment. That is three years after Heath and Human services most recent study. I then knew that they had to have updated the site at one point if there was a link from 2009. I then Googled it and found a whole new section of their website that had final reports from 2010. Here I found a ton of information.
The study done by Health and Human services was actually a mandate from congress in 1998 to “determine on a national level the impact of Head Start on the children it serves” (9). This study took 5,000 eligible kids between the ages of 3 and 4 years old and randomly assigned them to either Head Start or the control group. Those in the control group were not able to access the facilities offered by Head Start for the sake of the study, but still were involved in early childhood programs. They then began collecting data in 2002. They continued collecting the same data until 2006. This allowed them to follow students through the spring of their first grade year. The three and four year olds were studied separately and their results varied.
I now realize why this study had not been updated and why it is considered to be so accurate. A lot of time and effort was put into this study, almost 8 years of it. They just barely released their final results in 2010. Unfortunately obvious changes have been made since 2006. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a great example of this. It is sad that it is so outdated. The statement on the final product itself is 35 pages long. This does not include solutions, suggestions, and the like. So now I no longer have to wonder why this study is so old, or why it is considered most accurate. I do however wonder if there is a study just on Idaho Head Start Facilities. Perhaps since the numbers are lower the study would not have taken so long and results would be more recent. Of course I also find myself asking if a study no matter how precise really means anything to the parents or kids who honestly are just looking for a chance. No matter what the study says that is what Head Start offers, a chance.
First off, your works-cited looks like it has been done correctly! Your summary was very interesting, esp. on how you had to do such an intensive research! Because this is a blog I liked hearing about your researching happenings, however, for the sake of the actual bibliography, you don't think it would be structurally accurate to include the 1st paragraph. That's just a little fyi. :)
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job in your analysis expanding the author's credibility. I also found that some sources seemed out of date and wondered why. You could work on further expanding on the implications of the study. Usually in studies this means, but not necessarily, explaining why the results were important. You said the results varied, and no matter what they were, you could at least pick one that was important to your research out to include in your bibliography.
The quote that you included is the perfect way to include it!! You inserted a main point the author is trying to make, and you expanded on it wonderfully using the rest of the sources' ideas. This is exactly how you should "supply ongoing analysis of sources (pg. 221-writing analytically)." The reader is able to follow your thought process, and "your source fits into your unfolding presentation." This makes it easy to read and understand. You could, however, work on adding more. Zoom in on other main points the author intends to portray.
You also "use your sources to ask questions" very well. It does just flow together from one idea to the next. One thing I noticed, which I don't know how well I can explain, is that I feel you are researching research. By this I mean a lot of your response is to the publication years and different studies- which is the perfect way of "[putting] your sources into conversation with one another]." I just feel they are doing more talking than you are about the main source at hand. You integrate them better than I probably could. However, it seems to take over the main focus. Be expanding on the actual information you found, it will enrich your bibliography.
Lastly, your in-text citation follows the MLA guidelines correctly!
So awesome job.. hope I didn't confuse you or bring your bibliography down. It is wonderful!