Head Start Is Ass End

Here is the reason behind the move to shut down head start.  It sucks.


Under the "W" administration, the Office of Management and Budget created a performance measurement tool that revolutionized the way we look at federal program performance.  I consider this the legacy of the Bush (43) administration.


This is the Program Assessment Rating Tool:

"The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is a diagnostic tool used to assess the performance of Federal programs and to drive improvements in program performance.  Once completed, PART reviews help inform budget decisions and identify actions to improve results.  Agencies are held accountable for implementing PART follow-up actions, also known as improvement plans, for each of their programs.  The PART is designed to provide a consistent approach to assessing and rating programs across the Federal government.  PART assessments review overall program effectiveness, from how well a program is designed to how well it is implemented and what results it achieves."

Now, here is what happened back in 2007.  This tool was run on the Head Start programs of the States and the program was found to be functioning horribly.  It was not meeting its goals.


What were the goals? To prepare children and special needs children for kindergarten by teaching them hygiene, manners, and other social interpersonal tools needed to function in a learning environment.  Meals were a component, not a goal of the program.


Well, there were many studies that were generated to verify the quality of the PART findings.  Many of these Head Start evaluations found that the children who were successful had parents who taught them the programs goals in the home.


Now we have the next generation of child abuse propaganda mongrels protesting change.


Head Start is going to change because the entire way we look at education is changing.







Not only is the way we look at education changing, but the way we look at human development and its end result are changing.  It is starting with an investment in the future of society.


Currently, the funding streams are shifting to slowly phase out Head Start and replace it with a more integrated educational agenda.  These will be known as Home Based and Community Based services funded through Medicaid.

Head Start is government intervention into the failed market of the child where the market of the child was created by the government.  In essence, I guess you can say Head Start is the government's Ass End.


The more resources that are taken away from society, the more reliant it will become on government.  Invest in the entire household of the child, not remove the child to provide special services only to put the child right back in the same environment that did not have access to these services.


Investment in housing, transportation, employment opportunities, business growth, education redevelopment are all starts that will keep society ahead of its own demise.


The PART did not only find that Head Start was a failed program in not meeting its program objectives, it also found massive fraud, waste and abuse.


Since it is physically impossible for the HHS to inspect each and every program, there is in place a more stringent competitive bidding process.  All child welfare programs should have competitive bidding but they do not so the ineffectiveness of child welfare is hidden behind emotional campaigns to keep the gravy train coming instead of change.


Fraud is a terrible habit to kick.


U.S. DHHS OIG City of Detroit Department of Human Services Audit 2009
HHS will be evaluating the Head Start for FY2011.

A Head Start -- And Keeping It That Way

Any business owner can tell you that if their company isn't performing profitably and up to standards, one of two things will happen: either you make changes to improve its efficiency or a competitor will drive you out of business. Market forces have a way of cutting to the chase rather quickly.

Government doesn't usually operate that way, but it ought to. Recently, the federal government evaluated its Head Start early learning program and found many of its providers were not up to standards. In one of the biggest changes to Head Start in its 45-year history, the federal Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would force existing low-performing Head Start programs to compete for their federal funding against other interested entities in the community. At least a quarter of the program's grantees being evaluated in any given year, those falling below a performance threshold, would be forced to raise their standards or else a competitor would force them out of business. Those are market forces at work. As an entrepreneur and a fierce advocate for quality early childhood education, I strongly support this ambitious plan and the accountability that it demands. Our children deserve it, and our country depends on it.

Head Start has been a key component of health, nutrition and early learning opportunities since the 1960's. From its origins as part of the War on Poverty to its initial funding of Sesame Street, through 4 Democratic and 5 Republican Presidential administrations, Head Start has endured and served, helping an astounding 22 million children and their families. For years, peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that Head Start students are less likely to repeat grades and more likely to graduate from high school, go to college and obtain jobs. Simply put, it is a cornerstone of early childhood development in at-risk communities.

Making subpar Head Start providers "recompete" for funding would force the program to be even more effective. Currently, approximately 1,600 grantees run Head Start programs across the country, and the federal government evaluates them on a rotating basis. Under the proposed arrangement, the stakes of evaluation would escalate. The plan would force the lowest-performing 25% of those being scrutinized in any given year - using assessment factors like program quality, financial management and operational efficiency - to raise their quality or go out of business. And if terminated, the grantee would be barred from competing for funding for the next five years.

This tougher approach comes at the right time. The 2007 Head Start Reauthorization bill began a process of methodical program appraisal. So, too, did the recently completed Head Start Impact Study, mandated by Congress more than a decade ago. Though that study reiterated Head Start's effectiveness in preparing students for kindergarten, it also concluded that a number of Head Start students largely lost literacy and language gains by the end of first grade. Though it's quite likely that these findings underscore the need for stronger integration between Head Start and elementary schools, there's also no reason not to demand even higher quality from Head Start itself. There is no substitute for excellence.

Fortunately, that's exactly the view of the Department of Health and Human Services, which rejected an advisory's group recommendation of a 15-20% recompete, instead opting for the even more demanding 25% program. It's also the perspective of a series of Head Start providers and advocates. They yearn to weed out underperformers because -- in the words of one supporter -- "just 'good' isn't good enough."

That is a fundamentally American approach, and it will benefit every child who uses Head Start. Moreover, that driven, competitive attitude will resonate with prospective private partners for early childhood education. Having seen such partnerships flourish in connection with Educare, I believe that they are crucial -- and that the precondition for them is the credibility, particularly within the business community, of the early childhood mission.

It is a mission that has never been more important, and that has never required more from those who answer its call. With these more rigorous Head Start rules in place, that call will be answered, as it should be, with excellence.