Op-Ed on Head Start and DC Vouchers

February 3, 2010

I have an op-ed in today’s Washington Examiner that will also be on City Journal’s web site on how the Obama administration has betrayed its pledge to do what the evidence says works in education.  It starts:


Anyone Remember March of 2009?

January 14, 2010

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

On March 10, Pres. Barack Obama gave a major education speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. In that speech, he declared that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan “will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars: It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative, but whether it works.”

On March 13, Senate majority whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) wrote of the D.C. scholarship program in the Chicago Tribune:

Allowing the program to continue through end of next school year (2009–2010) will give Congress a chance to examine all the evidence to determine whether or not this program works.

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the authorizing committee, has promised a timely hearing on reauthorization of this program.

Many benefiting from this program want no questions asked about its efficacy. I think the taxpayers deserve better.

Well, well, well- the results are in: The program works. In fact, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program is one of the few programs funded by the Department of Education about which we have supportive evidence of the highest possible scientific quality.

Head Start on the other hand sucks wind in producing results when subjected to a random assignment evaluation.

President Obama will surely be calling for the transfer of Head Start funding into the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program any second now.


Head Start Basically Has No Effect

January 13, 2010

As I described last week, the Department of Health and Human Services has been sitting on an evaluation of the Head Start government run pre-school program.  Well, today the study was released (and it’s not even a Friday!).

As the leaks suggested, the study found virtually no lasting effects to participation in Head Start.  The study used a gold-standard, random assignment design and had a very large nationally representative sample.  This was a well done study (even if it mysteriously took more than 3 years after data collection was complete to release the results).

For students who were randomly assigned to Head Start or not at the age of 4, the researchers collected 19 measures of cognitive impacts at the end of kindergarten and 22 measures when those students finished 1st grade.  Of those 41 measures only 1 was significant and positive.  The remaining 40 showed no statistically significant difference.  The one significant effect was for receptive vocabulary, which showed no significant advantage for Head Start students after kindergarten but somehow re-emerged at the end of 1st grade. 

The study used the more relaxed p< .1 standard for statistical significance, so we could have seen about 4 significant differences by chance alone and only saw 1.  That positive effect had an effect size of .09, which is relatively modest.

For students randomly assigned to Head Start or not at the age of 3, the researchers also collected 41 measures of lasting cognitive effects.  This time they found 2 statistically significant positive effects and 1 statistically significant negative effect.  For the students who began at age 3 they showed a .08 effect size benefit from Head Start in oral comprehension after first grade and a .26 effect size benefit in spanish vocabulary after kindergarten but a .19 effect size decline in math ability at the end of kindergarten.  Again, 38 of the 41 measures of lasting effects showed no difference and the few significant effects (which could be produced by chance) showed mixed results.

I think it is safe to say from this very rigorous evaluation that Head Start had no lasting effect on the academic preparation of students.

The study also measured lasting effects on student behavior and emotion as well as the skills of parents.  Again, the effects were largely null and the few significant differences were in mixed directions.  The few positive effects from these categories were from parent reports and the few negative tended to come from teacher reports. 

The long and short of it is that the government has a giant and enormously expensive pre-school program that has made basically no difference for the students who participate in it.  And folks are proposing that we expand government pre-school to include all students.  Those same folks have some bridges they’d like to sell.

(edited for clarity)


Government Manipulation of Education Research

January 7, 2010

We all remember how Arne Duncan and the Obama administration manipulated the official evaluation of the DC voucher program by burying the release of positive results on a Friday after Congress failed to reauthorize the program.

If you thought that government manipulation of education research was limited to school choice because of the union’s special hatred of vouchers, you’d be wrong.  The Tricky Dicks in Washington are at it again, this time by manipulating the release of a Head Start evaluation.

According to Dan Lips of the Heritage Foundation in a commentary on the Fox News web site, an evaluation of the long-term effects of Head Start was supposed to be released in March 2009.  Data collection for the evaluation was completed in the spring of 2006. Yet the study remains unreleased.

The delay may have something to do with the fact that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats are huge supporters of expanding government-subsidized or provided pre-school.  And according to Dan Lips’ sources in the Department of Health and Human Services, which is overseeing the Head Start evaluation, the results of the government study show no lasting benefits to Head Start, which is the largest government pre-school program.  Government officials seem to be burying or at least delaying the release of those results so as not to spoil plans for the expansion of government pre-school programs.

Let this be a lesson.  As the federal government’s role in evaluating education programs grows, so does the potential for political mischief with that research.

(edited for clarity)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 839 other followers