Another Head Start Impact Study is leading to discussions about the effectiveness of the program. The latest study, Third Grade Follow-up to the Head Start Impact Study Final Report, is a third grade follow-up to the earlier Head Start Impact Study final report.

The overall findings can be summed up in two parts, which seem contradictory:

1. Head Start is effective: The evidence is clear that access to Head Start improved children’s preschool outcomes across developmental domains. Head Start was found to have a positive impact on the types and quality of preschool programs that children attended, with the study finding statistically significant differences between the Head Start group and the control group on every measure of children’s preschool experiences in the first year of the study.
2. Head Start is not effective: Head Start had few impacts on children in kindergarten through third grade. There was little evidence of systematic differences in children’s elementary school experiences through third grade, between children provided access to Head Start and their counterparts in the control group.

These opposite results don’t seem to make much sense.  I will speculate here on possible reasons for these conflicting findings:

• Head Start did a solid job , but their good work was cancelled out by mediocre elementary schools.
• The “dosage” wasn’t enough. It is a tall order to turn around the projector of children in poverty with a program that often only serves children for a year, and often part-time.
• Head Start needs major reform to have better outcomes. (Note:  The report doesn’t reflect recent quality improvement efforts)
• The report measures Head Start overall, with a large sample where mediocre programs may cancel out the effects of excellent Head Start programs.  Is there a way to focus on the Head Starts that had strong outcomes?
• Some research suggests that children in poverty often benefit by being served integrated with middle- and upper-class children.  Is Head Start too segregated by family income?

Readers—what do you think?

Dave Edie, Early Education Policy Analyst