Surprising Agreement on Head Start
Compli/ementing Curry and Besharov.
December 15, 2017
Looking over the three perspectives on Head Start research, I feel a bit like Goldilocks.
I find one too hard and one too soft, while the third is just right. I set out my reasoning below, but it barely rises above nitpicking. In truth, I am reasonably comfortable with each one. All three conclude that Head Start produces valuable gains and that the program can be improved. This consilience is noteworthy. Some may continue to deny that early intervention is effective, just as some denied a link between smoking and cancer long after this idea was tenable, but it is time for reasonable people to move on. All of us recommend strengthening Head Start, and I offer specific recommendations for improvement after discussing the other views.
The Authors
W. Steven (Steve) Barnett is a Board of Governors Professor and the founder and Senior Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. Dr. Barnett’s work primarily focuses on public policies regarding early childhood education, child care, and child development.