Head Start Program

Head Start is a federally funded child development program providing education and other services to children of disadvantaged families. The program was developed during the 1960s as an outgrowth of the Economic Opportunity Act. It began as a summer program called Project Head Start and was eventually placed within the federal program Good Start, Grow Smart. Today, Head Start remains committed to child, family, and community—as it was more than fifty years ago—but since then, it has added a professional development component for its instructors. Research on the effectiveness of the program has been controversial, with some studies finding students making great gains through the program, and others indicating that such gains tend to be minimal as students advance past third grade.

Keywords Child Development Programs; Early Childhood Education; Economic Opportunity Act (EOA); Good Start, Grow Smart; Head Start; Head Start Synthesis Project; Office of Equal Opportunity; Preschool; Project Head Start

Overview

Head Start is a preschool child development program designed to improve the academic performance in kindergarten and later grades of children from disadvantaged families. Head Start began in 1964 as Project Head Start, an initiative by the federal government that was developed to address the country's rising poverty and the poor academic performance rate of children from financially challenged families.

History

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson asked Sargent Shriver, director of the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), to convene a panel of experts and develop a plan to help disadvantaged Americans. The request came in response to pressure from policymakers and the general public, who were concerned over the country's growing poverty and over the high academic failure rate of underprivileged children. (Shipley & Oborn, 1996) Also, a growing body of data from recent research on child development showed that it was possible to improve academic success rates in kindergartners through intervention in the preschool years.

Shriver's panel soon came back with its recommendation—Project Head Start, a multi-faceted program providing preschool-age children from financially challenged families with opportunities and experiences normally enjoyed by children from wealthier families (Shipley & Oborn, 1996). Project Head Start was designed to aid children's emotional and intellectual growth and to help meet their health and nutrition needs.

Conditions at the time were ripe for a new and ambitious federal project. The government was enjoying a budget surplus from the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964, which implemented several social programs to help educate and improve the health and welfare of the underprivileged. Shriver was anxious to see this surplus put toward a program for children. The purpose of the EOA, said President Johnson, was "not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it; and, above all, to prevent it" (cited in Shipley & Oborn, 1996, p. 3). Though the Act did not call for the formation of Head Start or any other program, it charged the OEO—which was formed as a result of the act's passage—with focusing on the needs of children (Shipley & Oborn, 1996).

Project Head Start began in 1965, enrolling 561,359 preschool-age children in 11,068 centers across the country (Shipley & Oborn, 1996). Developers of the eight-week summer program had expected an enrollment of about 100,000 (Hodges & Cooper, 1981), but because it was widely advertised and the need for such a program had long existed, parents flocked to sign up their children. In areas where schools normally offered kindergarten, participants were five years old and set to enter kindergarten in the fall after Head Start ended. In other places where kindergartens did not exist, they were six years old and bound for the first grade (Hodges & Cooper, 1981).

In most places in the country where Head Start was offered, the program modeled itself after traditional nursery schools and followed the "Daily Program I for the Child Development Center," a popular curriculum of the time. The Daily Program called for consistent daily schedules and abundant, appropriate learning materials, and it used a "learning through living" approach. This approach applied not just to classes and teaching, but to "all the experiences, which the Center makes possible for its children" (Shipley & Oborn, 1996, p. 46). At the heart of the curriculum were four instructional principles: self-image, language, curiosity, and discipline. Teachers were urged to take the students' interests to heart. Evaluations of children in the program were done before it began and afterward using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (which gauges a child's aural vocabulary) and a preschool evaluation inventory developed by the OEO. (Shipley & Oborn, 1996).

The first summer of Head Start was extraordinarily hectic. Organizers rushed to hire staff and find space. They hurriedly drafted a program and created assessment instruments.

Initially, Head Start had seven objectives:

• Improve each child's physical health and abilities

• Improve emotional and social development

• Better cognitive processes and skills

• Establish patterns and expectations of success

• Improve each child's abilities to relate to his family while strengthening family stability and communication

• Engender in children and their families responsibility and accountability within society while giving society more opportunities to work with and help the underprivileged

• Give each child and his family a heightened sense of dignity.

Unfortunately, because of the hasty nature of the program's genesis, these objectives were mostly ignored. However, in retrospect, they are very revealing, as they articulated not just an educational curriculum but also a broad range of humane and societal goals. Head Start was meant not just to better each child's performance kindergarten, but also to improve society (Hodges & Cooper, 1981).

Though most local programs followed the dictated curriculum, there were exceptions. In some areas of the country where preschools, kindergartens, and early childhood teachers are scarce, Head Start was taught by elementary school teachers on summer break. Children in these programs received less of the age-appropriate Daily Program curriculum and more academic instruction (Hodges & Cooper, 1981). Over the next years, Head Start's organizers would establish instructional models for all teachers at the local level.

Parents, educators, and legislators immediately embraced the government's latest initiative, lauding its unique compass of services. In addition to readying children for school and aiding their psychological development, the program provided daycare, family and social services, and medical and dental treatment—all from one location. This "one-stop" service model for preschool children was the single greatest contributor to Head Start's instant and enduring success (Shipley & Oborn, 1996).

In 1969, control of Head Start was taken over from the OEO by the Office of Child Development in the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In 2007, Head Start was reauthorized by Congress through the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act and is administered by the Office of Head Start in the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. As of 2013, Head Start is the federal government’s only preschool program.

In 2006, the federal government poured $6.8 billion (Administration for Children and Families) into the program, distributing grants to the roughly 1,400 community-based non-profit organizations that administer Head Start at the local level. Curretly, five-year renewable grants are administered by the federal government to Head Start programs that are run by organizations, school districts or local government agencies, with approximately 10 percent of the grants being awarded to school districts. In 2013, 1,654 organizations received Head Start grants (New America Foundation, 2013).

In 2006, almost 906,000 children participated in the program. Of these, 62,000 were under 3 years of age and involved in Early Head Start, a program begun in 1995 to help families with infants and toddlers (Dept. Health & Human Services). In 2013, the program served over 962,000 children, 848,000 of which are between the ages of three and five (New America Foundation, 2013). Head Start operates in all 50 U.S. states and in U.S. territories, serving children in urban and rural areas and on American Indian reservations (About Head Start).

Early Head Start Program In 1995, Congress approved an offshoot of the Head Start program, known as Early Head Start, that was designed to service children from birth through age three. The program allowed for home visits by social workers to provide information and support to new mothers on breast feeding, nutrition, and child development. Early Head Start also providing funding for birth-to-three child care programs. In 2013, over 112,000 children were enrolled in Early Head Start programs, which received over $1 billion in federal funding that year (New America Foundation, 2013).

Further Insights

Head Start Reforms

The 2007 reauthorization of Head Start by Congress contained several reforms to the program, including placing greater emphasis on teacher education and credentials. By 2011, for example, all lead teachers were expected to have at least an associate’s (two-year) degree in early childhood education or a related field. Within two years, by 2013, half of all Head Start lead teachers were expected to have a bachelor’s (four-year) degree in early childhood education or a similar field, and they must also have experience in teaching preschoolers. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2013, 62 percent of lead Head Start teachers had obtained the required bachelor’s degree (New America Foundation, 2013).

Another reform enacted in 2007, which has become controversial on several fronts and is now referred to as recompetition, required all under- or low-performing Head Start and Early Head Start programs to compete for grant renewal against other local organizations requesting to operate Head Start or Early Head Start programs. Signed into law in 2011 by the Obama Administration, 132 grant recipients (including the New Haven, Connecticut, public schools; the Los Angeles County Office of Education; and the City of Detroit) were told in 2011 they would be required to re-compete for federal funds. Ultimately, 125 low-performing grant recipients were evaluated. Eighty of those organizations continued to receive their existing grants, 14 grantees saw their funds split between new and existing Head Start providers, 25 grantees lost complete Head Start coverage in their area, and 6 underperforming grantees were the only organizations in their geographical area that applied for federal funds. Since federal reviewers determined these 6 did not meet quality standards, competition was planned to reopen for those spots (Samuels, 2013).

Program Mission, Goals, and Objectives

Central to the program's philosophy is the belief that a child's academic, social, and emotional success depends on more than just intellectual and cognitive development during preschool and kindergarten. Other factors—such as physical health, mental health and nutritional needs—are also major determinants (Shipley & Oborn, 1996).

Head Start has narrowed and rearticulated its focus since that summer in 1965, when it first stated seven objectives. Today the program focuses on five areas in which to provide “a learning environment that supports children’s growth”:

•language and literacy

•cognition and general knowledge

•physical development and health

•social and emotional development

• "approaches to learning (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013).

Head Start remains committed to child, family, and community—as it was more than fifty years ago—but since then, it has added a professional development component for its instructors.

Classes maintain a low child-staff ratio. Staff members receive training in child development and early childhood education and learn how to work with disabled children. A 1972 congressional mandate requires that at least 10 percent of program enrollment be made available to disabled children. In the 2008–2009 program year, 11.5 percent of total enrollment consisted of children with disabilities (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013b)

Services

Children ages birth to five from low-income families who attend Head Start programs receive services that are designed to promote their physical, emotional, and intellectual growth. Head Start programs emphasize the role of a child’s parents or caregivers as the child’s most significant teacher and role model, and in that mindset, Head Start programs support

• "Family well-being and positive parent-child relationships

• "Families as learners and lifelong educators

• "Family in transitions

• "Family connections to peers and the community

• "Families as advocates and leaders (US Department of Health and Education Services, 2013c)

Programs and services are offered through full- or part-day schools and centers and in a child’s home where a Head Start staff member visits weekly to provide service and information to the child and family. Families who receive home-based services also meet regularly with other enrolled families.

Viewpoints

Evaluating Head Start

The Westinghouse Evaluation

Despite the program's immediate success with the public, Head Start received poor marks on its first major evaluation in 1969. A study by the Westinghouse Learning Corporation concluded that although participation in Head Start improved language and cognition in children by the first grade, these gains subsided in one or two years. But many have questioned the validity of these findings and believe Westinghouse painted an incomplete picture. For example, critics say the control group used children from less challenged families, so comparisons drawn between them and the more disadvantaged Head Start children are misleading. Data clearly shows no difference in skills and academic success between both groups by the second and third grades, but this could be because the control children started at higher levels (McGroder, 1990). Critics also argue that the Westinghouse study did not account for each subject's home life and school environment. It is possible that gains made by Head Start children faded because of negative influences from either of these areas. Also, the 1969 report evaluation did not take into account the impact of health, nutrition and parental involvement on children in the program (McGroder, 1990).

The Head Start Synthesis Project

No major review of Head Start was been for many years after the Westinghouse evaluation, but in 1985, the Head Start Synthesis Project attempted to distill a number of smaller studies toward some basic conclusions. Using more than 210 reports from local programs across the country, the project concluded that Head Start brings about "significant, immediate gains in cognitive test scores, socio-emotional test scores, and health status, (though) in the long-run, cognitive and socio-emotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start." (cited in McGroder, 1990, p. 3) A few reports studied in the project did, however, find that children participating in Head Start were more apt later to be promoted from grade to grade and less likely to need special education (McGroder, 1990).

The Head Start Synthesis Project differed from the Westinghouse study in that it took into account factors like health, nutrition, parental involvement, and the effects of parent education on child rearing. It judged Head Start as "very successful" in improving the health of children in the program and of providing health care, as well as improving the overall quality of health care in communities. But it was less successful in educating families about health care and influencing better home health practices (McGroder, 1990).

The project also found evidence that "parents who actively participate in the program have high levels of psychological well-being, improve their economic and social status, and have children with high levels of developmental achievement," (McGroder, 1990, p. 3) though only a small core of the same parents participates regularly. It also found that educating parents about child rearing had a positive effect on the parent-child relationship only some of the time.

As for its impact on communities, the project found that Head Start has been "associated with positive changes (which) usually result in increased and more comprehensive social and health services for the poor and in more responsive educational programs." (cited in McGroder, 1990, p. 3) It recommended that more collaboration should exist between Head Start and public schools to close the gap in teaching approaches between the two.

Like the Westinghouse study, the Synthesis Project had its critics. Some rejected the project for combining results from many studies, as this diminished the importance of findings in individual programs. The result was that the Synthesis Project underestimated Head Start's impact, and many believed that children were doing better than results indicated.

To support this belief, a 1987 study examined 15,000 Philadelphia public school children—many of whom were enrolled in Head Start. Though the exact ratio of Head Start children to those not enrolled in the program is unknown, it was concluded that children in the program were less likely to be held back a grade between kindergarten and sixth grade and had better overall attendance. Also, they performed slightly better on achievement tests in third grade, but there was no difference in test scores after the third grade (McGroder, 1990).

Head Start Impact Study, 2010

The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) released the Head Start Impact Study in January 2010, which tracked the progress made by three- and four-year-olds in the Head Start program through kindergarten and first grade (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). When evaluating data collected on the four-year-old group, researchers from the Heritage Foundation found that cognitive abilities in the areas of language skills, literacy, math, and overall school performance compared similarly with children in the same age group who had not participated in Head Start programs (Burke & Muhlhausen, 2013).

The same researchers found when analyzing data in the three-year-old group that these children actually had reduced ability in teacher-assisted math once they entered kindergarten. Teachers in the study reported that children who were not enrolled in Head Start programs prior to entering kindergarten were more prepared in math skills than those who had been in Head Start programs (Burke & Muhlhausen, 2013).

The report also showed that involvement in Head Start programs had little to no effect on socio-emotional, health, or parenting outcomes of enrolled children. For example, teachers reported that Head Start children “were more shy or socially reticent than the control [non-Head Start children] group” (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, p. 5-3).

Third Grade Follow-Up

Two years later, in October 2012, the DHHS released a congressionally mandated follow-up evaluation of Head Start. The report tracked 5,000 three- and four-year-olds through the end of third grade (Burke & Muhlhausen, 2013). The study showed that in the areas of cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting outcomes, involvement in Head Start programs had little to no measureable effect (Puma, 2012, pp. 81–87).

Conclusion

Despite the mixed and even controversial assessments of Head Start offered by the Westinghouse, Synthesis Project, and Philadelphia studies, as well as the impact studies performed by DHHS, the program continues to have its supporters. Many parents and community leaders have embraced Head Start because it addresses not only the emotional well-being and academic outcomes of children, but also their health and nutritional needs—and does it all from a single location. Its strong parent and community involvement component has also proven popular. Despite its need among low-income families and communities, the future of Head Start is, many believe, uncertain. The Head Start impact studies lead many to question whether a government program that is dependent on such considerable federal funding is worth the obvious lack of return on the tax payers’ investment.

Terms & Concepts

Child Development Program: Any curriculum that helps school-aged and preschool-aged children show progress in the areas of cognition, social skills, and emotional growth.

Early Childhood Education: Teaching done to preschool-age (five years old and younger) children.

Economic Opportunity Act (EOA): Legislation passed in 1964 that implemented social programs that helped educate and improve the health and welfare of the underprivileged

Good Start, Grow Smart: A program stemming from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that targets preschool-aged children with programs designed to equip them with skills they will need to be successful in kindergarten.

Head Start: A federally funded preschool program that provides education and other services to children of disadvantaged families.

Head Start Synthesis Project: A 1985 study that attempted to draw conclusions from several smaller studies of local Head Start programs

Office of Equal Opportunity: Created in 1964 as a result of the Equal Opportunity Act to oversee Head Start and other programs (since disbanded)

Preschool: Education given in a classroom setting to children before their first year of formal schooling (kindergarten).

Project Head Start: An eight-week, federally funded pilot program that became the pilot for Head Start

Bibliography

Barnett, S. W. & Hustedt, J. T. (2005). Head Start's lasting benefits. Infants and Young Children: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices, 13 , 16-24. Retrieved January 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15491200&site=ehost-live

Bassok, D. (2013). Raising teacher education levels in Head Start: Exploring programmatic changes between 1999 and 2011. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 831–842. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90635910

Building on results: a blueprint for strengthening NCLB. (n.d.) Retrieved February 17, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/education/

Burke, Lindsey, & Muhlhausen, David B. (2013, January). Head Start impact evaluation report finally released. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/head-start-impact-evaluation-report-finally-released#%5Fftn3

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families. (n.d.). About Head Start. Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/index.htm

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (n.d.) Head Start: A comprehensive child development program. Head Start brochure. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from http://www.headstartinfo.org/recruitment/cdp.htm

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families. (2006). Good Start, Grow Smart: a guide to Good Start, Grow Smart and other federal early learning initiatives (2006). Retrieved January 23, 2007, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/initiatives/gsgs/fedpubs/GSGSBooklet.pdf

Hodges, W., Cooper, M. (1981). Head Start and follow through: Influences on intellectual development. Journal of Special Education, 15 . Retrieved January 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4726637&site=ehost-live

Hurlburt, M. S., Nguyen, K., Reid, J., Webster-Stratton, C., & Zhang, J. (2013). Efficacy of the Incredible Years group parent program with families in Head Start who self-reported a history of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 531–543. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89606825

Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Targeted Early Intervention Programs and Their Benefits. In Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Rand Corporation. Retrieved December 24, 2007, from www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR898/MR-898.Ch2.pdf.

Kim, Y. (2013). Head Start, 4 years after completing the program. Education Economics, 21, 503–519. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90091876

McGroder, S. M. (1990). Head Start: What do we know about what works? Retrieved January 24, 2007, from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/headstar.htm

New America Foundation. (2013). Head Start. Federal Education Budget Project: Background and Analysis. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/head-start

Paulsell, D., Kisker, E. E., Love, J. M., & Raikes, H. H. (2002). Understanding implementation in early Head Start programs: Implications for policy and practice. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23 (1/2), 14-35. Retrieved January 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11772375&site=ehost-live

Puma, Michael, et al. (2012, October). Third grade follow-up to the Head Start impact study. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/head%5Fstart%5Freport.pdf

Samuels, Christina. (2013, April 3). Some Head Start providers to lose their federal aid. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/early%5Fyears/2013/04/some%5Fhead%5Fstart%5Fproviders%5Fto%5Flose%5Ftheir%5Ffederal%5Faid.html

Shipley, G. L., & Oborn, C. S. (1996). A review of four preschool programs: Four preschool models that work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401034). Retrieved November 27, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/14/c4/24.pdf

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2010, January). Head Start impact study: Final report. Head Start Research. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive%5Fsummary%5Ffinal.pdf

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2013a, November 20). About Head Start: What we do. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/about

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2013b, February 1). Head Start program fact sheet fiscal year 2010. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/mr/factsheets/fHeadStartProgr.htm

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2013c). Head Start services. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/head-start

Suggested Reading

Currie, J., Duncan, T. (2000). School quality and the longer-term effects of Head Start. Journal of Human Resources, 35 , 755-774. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3834058&site=ehost-live

Hawken, L. S., Johnston, S. S., & McDonnell, A. P. (2005). Emerging literacy views and practices: Results from a national survey of Head Start preschool teachers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25 , 232-242. Retrieved January 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19487685&site=ehost-live

Kantor, H. (2006). The birth of Head Start: Preschool education policies in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Journal of American History, 92 , 1518-1519. Retrieved January 26, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20249041&site=ehost-live

Manz, P. (2012). Home-based Head Start and family involvement: An exploratory study of the associations among home visiting frequency and family involvement dimensions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 231–238. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77330839

Walsh, B. A., & Rose, K. (2013). Impact of adult vocabulary noneliciting and eliciting questions on the novel vocabulary acquisition of preschoolers enrolled in Head Start. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27, 31–45. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84423121