January 14, 2010 10:39AM # How the Media Are Covering ‘Head Start’s’ Failure By [Andrew J. Coulson](https://www.cato.org/people/andrew-coulson) --- SHARE A day after it was released, here’s a roundup of how the mainstream media are covering the HHS study showing that America’s *$100 billion* plus investment in Head Start is a failure: > \[…crickets…\] Nada. Zilch. Rien du tout, mes amis. That’s based on a Google News search for \[“Head Start” study\]. The only media organs to touch on this topic so far have been blogs: [Jay Greene’s](http://jaypgreene.com/2010/01/13/head-start-basically/), [The Heritage Foundation’s](http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/14/long-overdue-head-start-evaluation-shows-no-lasting-benefit-for-children/), the [Independent Women’s Forum](http://iwf.org/inkwell/show/22542.html), and [the one ](https://www.cato.org/2010/01/13/head-starts-impact-evanescent-hhs-study/)you’re [reading ](https://www.cato.org/2010/01/13/head-start-epic-fail/)right now. Okay. There was one exception. According to Google News, one non-blog — with a print version no less — covered this story so far. The *NY Times*? The *Washington Post*? Nope: The [World](http://online.worldmag.com/2010/01/14/study-head-starts-impact-fades/), a Christian news magazine. And they actually did their homework, linking to [this recent and highly relevant review of the research on pre‑K program impacts](https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10384). And for those other publications in the MSM still standing at the edge of the pool: the water’s warm folks, c’mon in. What’s really interesting, though, is that the HHS had the moral fibre to actually issue [a press release ](http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100113006596&newsLang=en)about this damning study. That showed courage — and a certain panache. I particularly liked this, from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: “Research clearly shows that Head Start positively impacts the school readiness of low-income children.” Umm, yes Ms. Secretary, but the same research shows *those effects vanish by the end of first grade*. I guess that information is on a *need-to-not-know* basis. The public needs to not know about it or the administration hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in Kauai of getting American tax payers to throw another $100 billion or so at government pre‑K, as President Obama is so very keen to do. **Update:** In my original review of the coverage on this story I missed the blog that first broke the story: [Early Ed Watch](http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/thoughts_on_todays_release_of_the_head_start_impact_study-26270) at the New America Foundation. One thing that distinguishes New America’s supporters of big government pre‑k programs from those in the Obama administration is that the former have a good grasp of the implications of this study, writing that: “The next few weeks are probably going to be rocky ones for the Head Start community. Results released today from the Impact Study show that children’s gains from participating in Head Start, documented in a 2005 installment of the study, do not last through the end of 1st grade.” But if the folks at the NAF recognize this reality, that begs an important question: will they now redirect their efforts to the support of [programs](../2010/01/13/head-starts-impact-evanescent-hhs-study/) whose benefits for disadvantaged children actually *grow* in magnitude the longer kids stay in school, or will they continue to push for programs like Head Start that have been proven costly failures? ##### Related Tags [Education](https://www.cato.org/education), [Center for Educational Freedom](https://www.cato.org/center-educational-freedom) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).