<<  <  >  >>

Page 20

Once the children enter school there is little

difference between the scores of Head Start and

control children. . . . Findings for the indi-

vidual cognitive measures--intelligence, readi-

ness and achievement--reflect the same trends as

the global measure. . . . By the end of the sec-

ond year there are no educationally meaningful

differences on any of the measures.103

Findings on the impact on children's socioemotional

development--social behavior, achievement motivation, and

self-esteem--are similar.  The evidence showed,

On social behavior, former Head Start enrollees . . .

drop to the level of comparison children by the

end of the third year.  On achievement motiva-

tion and self-esteem, Head Start children drop

below non-Head Starters a year after Head Start,

then score about the same as comparison children

for the next two years.104

Head Start's inability to produce lasting gains after

more than three decades confirms the research on early

intervention--short-term gains are possible, but those gains

do not last--once again calling into question the claims of

advocates of universal preschool.  There simply is no evi-

dence that universal preschool will benefit children.  Head

Start has failed to have a lasting impact on children's

cognitive, social, or emotional development, let alone

reduce teenage pregnancy rates, delinquency, or welfare use.

The GAO is correct in maintaining that the body of

research literature on Head Start is imperfect.  Like the

literature on early intervention, many of the studies are

methodologically flawed, and the Head Start program has

undergone significant changes since many of the studies

were conducted.  Given that, one might suggest that more

and better research is needed before concluding that the

program has failed.  Yet the literature on Head Start,

however imperfect, is remarkably consistent with the past

40 years of research findings on early intervention in

general.  Both bodies of research consistently show that

early intervention programs may have short-term gains, but

those gains fade within a few years of exiting the pro-

grams.  In that light, calls for more and better research

begin to look like last-ditch attempts to stall the

release of the lamentable finding that early intervention

is no golden ticket: underachievement will not be eradi-

cated by preschool participation.