The latest edition of the Blaze Magazine reported on President Obama’s insistence to double down on yet another failed federal program. In so doing, the President actually revealed the need to eliminate Head Start, not expand it.
“Doubling down” has become SOP with the Campaigner in Chief. Always good for preaching and speaking in generalities, he claims that we can’t live without this program or that program, or what individuals should or should not do.
In the case of Head Start, the chief executive provides no proof that the desired outcomes will justify the costs to taxpayers and intellectual opportunity costs for children. In fact, his own administration’s evidence provides a glimpse at the truth behind Head Start. We The People deserve better, and the next generation cannot afford to waste educational opportunities – real educational opportunities with verifiable outcomes.
President Obama is essentially telling states like Arizona to pick up the bill for an unproven claim that Head Start is a critical component to education. The “educational” program is so important that instead of the Department of Education running it, the program is under the Department of Health & Human Services. Now, that’s a relief; Kathleen Sebelius is in charge.
From The Blaze, December, 2013: “Even though the federally funded preschool program known as Head Start is receiving poor reviews, President Obama would like to expand it to become part of a universal education system. Head Start costs taxpayers $8 billion annually, but the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has acknowledged that any benefits from the program are virtually eliminated by the third grade.”
The HHS study said, “There were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade, there were very few impacts.” Additionally, children who were involved with Head Start did worse in math and were more challenged with social interactions by third grade than those who didn’t go through the program.
Despite the poor reviews, Obama and his team are doubling down on the idea.
In the days following his State of the Union address, the president made his intentions clear while speaking at an event in Decatur, Ga.: “I propose working with states like Georgia to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Every child. Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than $7 later on, boosting graduating rates, reducing teen pregnancy, reducing violent crime.”
Wait, what? Where’s the proof, Mr. President? Did you read what your own department said about the program? You would think that with the central-planning-obsessive-compulsive-administration we now have, those on the inside of the Obama White House would be able to waive the President off from making such a verifiably untrue statement.
The report goes on to say, “Under his plan, about 2 million children in poverty would be able to attend preschool for free, paid for through a combination of state and federal tax dollars.
The Washington Post reports that education experts estimate that this “free” program will likely cost $10 billion to $25 billion a year.”
So we’ve all learned that when Barack Obama says “free,” he really means “at someone else’s expense.”
What is even more disturbing than this redistribution of wealth scam, is that kids who are already at risk, already in poverty and already facing serious adversity will, in all likelihood, be held in poverty by a program that is proven to set them back. This sounds an awful lot like the results of the “Great Society,” LBJ’s lasting gift to the poor.
The President’s claim that we need to spend $25 billion, three times what we already spend, on Head Start is DOA based on fact. Surely he’s heard a common business evaluation phrase, “Past performance is a key predictor of future success.” But wait, that is a free market principle, which cannot fit his redistributive model.
The experts at HHS tell us three key things in their report:
Fact 1: Whatever benefits the program may create are virtually eliminated by the third grade.
Fact 2: The program costs taxpayers $8 billion each year already.
Fact 3: Children who were in the program actually did worse than those not in the program.
Even more evidence that Head Start is ineffective as a whole can be found in the HHS Head Start Final Report for 2012.[1] While the report attempts to downplay the program deficiencies, there are numerous and significant facts which point to its lack of desirable outcomes.
The actual outcome is all too clear: Head Start has not set kids up for success.
Education is constitutionally a matter for the states. Throwing more money at a failed experiment is the federal way, but we can change that. The feds should exit the arena. Funds spent on “education” by the federal bureaucracy – The Department’s of Education and Health & Human Services – should be used where they are needed most: in the classroom and delivered to those classrooms by the states.
School teachers are woefully underpaid for what they do. I can imagine a public school system where teachers make thousands of dollars more; a system where teachers don’t have to buy supplies for their pupils or work though their lunch hour. I can also imagine a preschool system that works with parents to prepare children for success, with meaningful, measurable success and milestones. But, I can’t imagine a defective program making a difference by receiving three times the funding it already has.
In the private sector, if you are not producing or delivering a product, you are overhead. Administration (management) is overhead. Education is a critical “product” that we have to get right. Consumers demand quality, but quality has a cost. Successful business operations know the cost of quality, so they generally look at three things to reduce their cost. Process, Materials and Management must undergo constant, rigorous review. Ultimately, when acceptable quality and acceptable cost intersect the consumers, our children win.
It is time for the federal government to get out of the education business and get out of the way of the several states. Education, like governance, is most effective when it is closest to the people. It is the states who are already innovating and delivering results in their own educational programs. Arizona’s model School Voucher Program, adopted by several other states, is just one example. Putting resources where they produce results is how we will set preschoolers up for their success, not with a massive government program that is proven to fail at its primary mission.
Arizona needs these financial resources to pay teachers for the true value they bring to their profession. When our teachers want to know why they are not paid more, maybe we should look closely at the waste of the federal government and bring pressure to bear on the President and on Congress to send the money to the states, where it belongs to fund education delivery as opposed to administration.