|Manufacturer||Chevrolet (General Motors)|
|Body and chassis|
|Body style||2-door coupe|
|Engine||427cid (7.0L) Chevrolet V8|
- Head Start Performance Standards
- Performance Standards Definition
- Head Start Program Performance Standards 2010 Camaro For Sale
The Yenko Super Camaro was a modified Chevrolet Camaro prepared by Yenko Chevrolet, developed by the dealership owner and racer, Don Yenko.
Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) Head Start and Early Head Start, State Preschool. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION. Find the Head Start Location Near You. Get Started Today! New Head Start Program Performance Standards; I Serve, I Support, I Lead. Head Start agencies that provide services to children and families must meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards and the requirements set forth in the Head Start Act of 2007. The Office of Head Start (OHS) also offers direction through Program Instructions (PIs) and Information Memorandums (IMs). Head Start program performance standards are the foundation on which programs design and deliver comprehensive, high quality individualized services to support the school readiness of children from low-income families. The first set of Head Start program performance standards were published in the 1970s.
When the Camaro debuted, a General Motors corporate edict prevented it from carrying an engine larger than 400 in³ (6.6 L) V8. This put the Camaro at a disadvantage to the Ford Mustang, Plymouth Barracuda and the Dodge Dart since neither Ford nor Plymouth/Dodge had such a limit (although Ford only had a 390 Mustang in 1967). Don Yenko and others knew there was a market for a more powerful Camaro and found ways around the GM limit.
Yenko ordered L78 equipped SS Camaros and swapped in the Chevrolet Corvette's L72 427 in³ (7.0 L) V8. The cars came with a 4.10 rear end and heavy-duty suspension. The approximate number of cars produced is 106. Yenko also installed a fiberglass replacement hood similar to the 'Stinger' hood featured on 1967 big-block Corvettes. The Camaros were equipped with a M21 transmission. The horsepower was rated at 450 hp (336 kW).
Encouraged by the success of the 1967 model, Yenko continued to produce his Yenko Super Camaros for 1968. The 1968 Yenko Super Camaros started life as Super Sports with L78 396 in³ 375 hp (280 kW) hp engine and close ratio 4-speed Muncie transmission. Yenko also ordered the cars with COPO 9737 which included a 140 mph (230 km/h) speedometer, a larger 1 1/8th inch front anti-sway bar, and a special trim tag. Yenko swapped out the factory 396 in³ short-block for the L72 427 in³ 450 hp (336 kW) short-block reusing the rest of the 396 in³ engine's components including the heads, carburetor, intake manifold, etc. He swapped the stock hood for a twin-snorkel fiberglass hood and added Pontiac's 14'x6' steel wheels with special Yenko caps, Yenko emblems gracing the front grill, front fenders and tail panel. 427 emblems were added to the tail panel and front fenders as well. The cars had a Yenko Super Camaro serial-numbered tag in the driver's side door jamb and Stewart Warner pedestal-mounted tachometer and gauges were installed in the interior. Early cars got a rear spoiler made for Yenko and later cars all got the factory spoilers front and rear. The recognized production number for these cars is approx 64 cars converted, with well less than half of that number known to exist today.
For 1969, the dealership worked with Chevrolet to have the L72 engines installed on the factory assembly line using a Central Office Production Order, or COPO. The orders included power disc brakes, spoilers, cowl-induction hood, a 4.10 Positraction rear end with gears that were heat treated for strength, a bigger front sway bar, and a heavy-duty 4-core radiator. Buyers of the car had the option of either the M-21 four speed or the Turbo Hydramatic 400 automatic transmission. A total of 201 cars were sold in 1969, 171 with four speed transmissions and 30 with automatic transmissions. Yenko rounded out the visual package with special 'Yenko 427' badges, stripes down the sides and hood, and the sYc (Yenko Super Car) on the headrests. According to the Camaro Research Group, standard black interior (code 711) was the only interior ordered by Yenko in 69.
The 1981 Yenko Turbo Z was based on a 1981 Camaro. Don Yenko's comments on the car are:
|“||From a performance standpoint, cars have shown a slow but steady decline in the last 10 years. Low compression engines to accommodate low octane fuel, are now the norm. Ever-increasing numbers of emissions controls have sapped their share of horsepower from once potent engines. To recover these accumulated horsepower losses without increasing pollution presents a real challenge. After months of testing and development we have done it. Working closely with some competent people at Turbo International a system emerged that does everything we hoped for. This system, like all others, captures the energy to improve the induction of fuel/air mixture. The similarity to the other systems stops right here. Our system uses no priority valve so there's no turbo-lag. We don't have a waste gate to malfunction either. And since all of the fuel entering the engine is 'processed' through the turbo, you get better fuel economy and improved response even without being in boost. Every nut, bolt and fitting used in this system is the best available. This has all been developed with each and every emission control connected and functional.||”|
1969 Continuation Series
Recently a company in North Carolina called Classic Automotive Restoration Specialists has restarted production of the 1969 Yenko Camaro. Don Yenko sold 201 of his famous COPO-program Camaros out of his Canonsburg, PA dealership. As reported in the March '08 issue of Muscle Car Review, the vehicle is a fully licensed and certified Yenko starting at #202. The 427 in³ engine under the hood was built by GM who has brought back the big block engines from the muscle car era. The rest of the components took 2½ years to track down the original tooling. Options offered on the vehicle are the same as was available in 1969 including paint colors. The car costs around 60% less than some of the current 43-year-old Yenko Camaro survivors but drives like the old car would have when it was new from the dealership. Two known people own Yenko's Camaros.
A new Yenko Camaro based on the new 2010 Camaro platform was introduced at SEMA 2009. The new engine is a supercharged version of GM's LS3, the 6.2-liter V8 that comes standard with the Camaro SS. Since it is only the Phase I Yenko, it is expected that Phase II and Phase III Yenkos are coming which will have a Z06-sourced LS7 427 in³ engine and possibly even an LS9.
- ^'1969 Chevy Camaro Yenko'. Flickr - Photo Sharing!. Retrieved 2016-01-04.
- ^http://www.copo.com/LM1-Yenko-Turbo-Z-History.htm[dead link]
- ^2007 SEMA - A few of our favorite things, Consumer Reports blog, December 25, 2007, archived from the original on May 12, 2009, retrieved 2010-04-15Cite uses deprecated parameter
- ^1969 Yenko, Classic Automotive Restoration Specialists, retrieved 2010-04-15
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Yenko Camaro.|
Head Start is a program of the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides comprehensive early childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and families. The program's services and resources are designed to foster stable family relationships, enhance children's physical and emotional well-being, and establish an environment to develop strong cognitive skills. The transition from preschool to elementary school imposes diverse developmental challenges that include requiring the children to engage successfully with their peers outside the family network, adjust to the space of a classroom, and meet the expectations the school setting provides.
Launched in 1965 by its creator and first director Jule Sugarman, Head Start was originally conceived as a catch-up summer school program that would teach low-income children in a few weeks what they needed to know to start elementary school. The Head Start Act of 1981 expanded the program. The program was revised and reauthorized in December 2007. Head Start is one of the longest-running programs to address the effects of systemic poverty in the United States by intervening to aid children. As of late 2005, more than 22 million children had participated. The current director of Head Start is Dr. Deborah Bergeron 
- 8.4Critical studies and statements
Head Start began as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society campaign. Its justification came from the staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.Stan Salett, civil rights organizer, national education policy adviser, and creator of the Upward Bound Program, is also credited with initiating the Head Start program.
Johnson started the War on Poverty shortly after President Kennedy's assassination. The murder shook the nation, and Johnson attempted to gain public trust by passing legacy legislation during the subsequent months. Johnson received an initial briefing from Walter Heller, who informed Johnson of Kennedy's poverty program. By March 1964, the legislation, now known as the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, had been prepared for Congress. The legislation included training, educational, and service programs for communities, including the Job Corps.
The Office of Economic Opportunity's Community Action Program launched Project Head Start as an eight-week summer program in 1965. The program was led by Dr. Robert Cooke, a pediatrician at Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Edward Zigler, a professor of psychology and director of the Yale Child Study Center. They designed a comprehensive child development program intended to help communities meet the needs of disadvantaged preschool children. The following year it was authorized by Congress as a year–round program. In 1968, Head Start began funding a television series that would eventually be called Sesame Street, operated by the Carnegie CorporationChildren's Television Workshop (CTW).
In 1969, Head Start was transferred to the Office of Child Development in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (later the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)) by the Nixon Administration. Today the program is in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) division of DHHS.
Head Start Performance Standards
In 1994, the Early Head Start program was established to serve children from birth to age three, in an effort to capitalize on research evidence that showed that the first three years are critical to children's long-term development.
In the early years, some 700,000 children enrolled at a per-capita cost of $2,000 to $3,000 (2011 dollars). Under the full-time program, enrollment dropped to under 400,000 by the early 1970s. Enrollment reached close to 1 million children by 2011.
The Head Start Policy Council makes up part of the Head Start governing body. Policy Council must be composed of two types of representatives: parents of currently enrolled children and community representatives. At least 51% of the members of this group must be the parents of currently enrolled children (see 45 CFR 1306.3(h) for a definition of a Head Start Parent). All parent members of the Policy Council stand for election or re-election annually through individual parent groups. Grantees/Delegates are required to provide proportionate representation to parents in all program options and settings. If agencies operate programs serving different geographical regions or ethnic groups, they must ensure that all groups being served will have an equal opportunity to serve on the Policy Council. The Policy Council is required to meet once each month. The term follows the federal government fiscal year, running November–November. Service on the Policy Council board is limited to three consecutive years per lifetime. The meetings are conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules. The meeting day and time is agreed upon during the first meeting of the term year and may be adjusted as needed.
The Policy Council approval is needed for several program functions, from new hires to the program, as well as for the budget and spending. The Council can serve the program in ways that the others in the program cannot, as it is the only body that is part of Head Start that can do fundraising. In addition to monthly meetings, Policy Council may at times need to hold special or emergency meetings or have a phone vote. Policy Council representatives are required to attend classroom meetings and report back to the Policy Council with issues and needs of the classroom. They may also be asked to sit in on interviews as Head Start requires that a Policy Council representative be present for all interviews. The officers of Policy Council include vice-chairperson, secretary, and vice-secretary. Classrooms are also able to elect alternate Policy Council reps in case the main rep is unable to attend the meetings.
2006 enterprise key key license product quickbooks tutorial. Where would I be able to edit this number in my program files or registry to where it will display the right product key. QB has offered no support on this matter and just tells us to re-type the license number in over and over and restart QB over and over.
Services and programs
Head Start serves over 1 million children and their families each year in urban and rural areas in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories. Related health services include health screenings, health check-ups and dental check-ups. Family advocates assist parents in accessing community resources. All services are specific to each family's culture and experience. Head Start programs also seek to support children's social emotional development.
Programs and services include:
- Early Head Start promotes healthy prenatal outcomes, healthy families, as well as infant and toddler development beginning as early as birth.
- Head Start helps to create healthy development and early childhood education in low-income children ages three to five.
- Family and Community Partnerships engage and support parents to identify and meet their own goals, nurture their children, and advocate for communities that support children and families.
- Migrant and Seasonal services are for children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. Service hours are longer and programs extend for fewer months than traditional Head Start.
- Head Start serves indigenous Americans with centers on reservations and in urban communities.
- Homeless children were included explicitly as subjects with the 2007 re-authorization. Programs must identify and provide services to homeless children of all ages within a reasonable period. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 2001 also requires access to early childhood education such as Head Start for homeless children and families.
- Tri-Counties Regional Center is one of twenty-one non-profit regional centers in California providing lifelong services and supports for people with developmental disabilities residing in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
- Early Start is California's response to federal legislation ensuring that services to eligible infants and toddlers are coordinated and family-centered. It is a statewide system of early intervention services for infants and toddlers from birth to 36 months of age. This program is coordinated by regional centers and public school districts.
- Each eligible child will be assigned a Service Coordinator who will be responsible for the coordination of early intervention services. Eligible children and their families may receive a variety of early intervention services. Services for young children are family-centered, based on family concerns, priorities and resources, and provided in a child's natural setting. Services may include, but are not limited to:
- Infant stimulation (specialized instruction) in your home or community
- Physical, occupational and/or speech/language therapy
- Behavior services
- Family Resource Centers for parent-to-parent support
Eligibility is largely income-based, although each local program includes other eligibility criteria, such as disabilities and services needed by other family members. Families must earn less than 100% of the federal poverty level. Families may also qualify under a categorical eligibility category—receipt of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds, Supplemental Security funds, or Homeless, as per the McKinney-Vento Act. Up to 10% of any funded program's enrollment can be from higher income families or families experiencing emergency situations. All programs are required to provide services to children with disabilities, who must comprise 10% of their total enrollment. Per the Head Start Act (2007), programs may elect to serve families whose income is between 100-130% under certain circumstances. Programs must also complete additional reporting requirements if this is appropriate for their community.
Budget and funding
The 2011 federal budget for Head Start was $8.1 billion. 85% was to be devoted to direct services and no more than 15% on administration, serving approximately one million students.
Local grantees must provide a 20% cash/in-kind match. Each local grantee is required to obtain an annual financial audit, if it receives more than $500,000 in federal support.
Grants are awarded by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Regional Offices and the American Indian – Alaska Native and Migrant and Seasonal Program Branches directly to local public agencies, private organizations, Indian tribes and school systems.
The individual Head Start classrooms/centers 'repay' the grant through a program known as InKind. The Inkind program is a way to get their parents and their students working together on out of class studies.
All lead teachers must have a bachelor's degree or be working towards one. Most have completed six or more courses in early-childhood education. By 2013, all teachers were to have associate degrees in a related field and half must have bachelor's degrees.
As of 2003, the average Head Start teacher made $21,000 per year, compared to the public school teacher average of $43,000.
Teachers are also required to complete a (CDA) Child Development Associate certificate.
Head Start programs typically operate independently from local school districts. Most often they are administered through local social-services agencies. Classes are generally small, with fewer than ten enrollees per adult staff member. Individual programs develop their own academic and social curricula, following federal performance standards.
Many studies of program effectiveness have been conducted during Head Start's multi-decade history. The studies failed to produce an academic or political consensus about the program's effects.
Supportive studies and statements
In 2015, CCR Analytics, formerly Child Care Analytics, published the results of their Family Outcomes Survey completed by nearly 11,600 California Head Start and Early Head Start parents. 90% of parents surveyed said that Head Start helped them to get or keep a job. 92% of parents surveyed said that Head Start helped them to enroll in an educational or training program. 99% of families surveyed said that Head Start helped them to improve their parenting skills, such as responding to children's misbehavior and helping their children to learn. These results indicate that Head Start has a positive impact on the whole family, beyond the individual children who attend the program.
In 2014, CCR Analytics published the results of their study of 49,467 children assessed in the 2012–2013 school year from 81 Head Start programs throughout the state of California (more than 50% of the entire California Head Start population). Participation in the study was open to all California Head Start programs who used the DRDP-PS 2010 assessment tool. The study found that providing two years of Head Start to a child increases the probability by between 13% to 86% that the child will meet age appropriate expectations. Regression discontinuity design was used to measure program impact without denying a control group the opportunity to attend Head Start. The analysis compared three-year-olds enrolled in Head Start to four-year-olds who returned to Head Start for their second year. This also eliminated the issue of selection bias because both groups chose to attend Head Start as three-year-olds.
In 2009, David Deming evaluated the program, using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. He compared siblings and found that those who attended Head Start showed stronger academic performance as shown on test scores for years afterward, were less likely to be diagnosed as learning-disabled, less likely to commit crime, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, and less likely to suffer from poor health as an adult. A randomize study of the pre-k program serving socioeconomically disadvantaged children in Tennessee found short-term gains in language, literacy and math outcomes for pre-k participants compared with children who did not participate, which was also confirmed by a discontinuity analysis (Lip, Farran, Bilbrey, Hofer, & Dong, 2011).
Lee collected data across sixty Head Start classrooms in 2007 and 2008. A sample of 1,260 children ages three to four were selected as the final sample. Of these children, 446 had entered Head Start at age 3 and enrolled for a year (Group 1); 498 had been entered at age 4 and enrolled for a year (Group 2); and 316 children had been enrolled for 2 years, entering at age 3 (Group 3). Academic outcome measures in literacy, math and science were collected based on the Head Start and Early Childhood Program Observational Checklist rating on a 4-point scale (1—not yet to 4—excels. Family risk factor indicators (developed by the State Department of Education) included single parent, unemployed parent, teenage parent, parental loss (divorce/death), low parental school achievement, food insufficiency. Group 3 had higher literacy, math and science scores than the other groups. Children in the high-risk group had significantly lower literacy, math, and science scores than those who had three or fewer risk factors. Head Start is associated with significant gains in test scores. Head Start significantly reduces the probability that a child will repeat a grade.
In 2002, Garces, Thomas and Currie used data from the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics to review outcomes for close to 4,000 participating adults followed from childhood and compared with non-participant siblings. Among European Americans, adults who had attended Head Start were significantly more likely to complete high school, attend college and possibly have higher earnings in their early twenties. African-American adults who had attended Head Start were significantly less likely to be booked/charged for a crime. Head Start may increase the likelihood that African-American males graduate from high school. Separately the authors noted larger effects for younger siblings who attended Head Start after an older sibling.
In 1998, Congress mandated an intensive study of the effectiveness of Head Start, the 'Head Start Impact Study,' which studied a target population of 5,000 3- and 4-year-old children. The study measured Head Start's effectiveness as compared to other forms of community support and educational intervention, as opposed to comparing Head Start to a nonintervention alternative. Head Start Impact Study First Year Findings were released in June 2005. Study participants were assigned to either Head Start or other parent–selected community resources for one year. 60% of the children in the control group were placed in other preschools. The first report showed consistent small to moderate advantages to 3-year-old children including pre-reading, pre-vocabulary and parent reports of children's literacy skills. No significant impacts were found for oral comprehension, phonological awareness, or early mathematics skills for either age group. Fewer positive benefits were found for 4-year-olds. The benefits improved with early participation and varied across racial and ethnic groups. These analyses did not assess the benefits' durability.
In 1976, Datta summarized 31 studies, concluding that the program showed immediate improvement in IQ scores of participating children, though nonparticipants narrowed the difference over time.[failed verification]
In 1975, Seitz, Abelson, Levine and Zigler compared disadvantaged children enrolled and not enrolled in Head Start, using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). The participants were low-income inner-city black children whose unemployed, economically disadvantaged parents were considered unskilled. The Head Start children had attended for at least five months at the time of testing, including nine boys and 11 girls. The non-enrolled group was on the Head Start waiting list. The control group consisted of 11 boys and nine girls. The groups were matched by family income, parental employment and marital status. The tester tested children at home and in a school or office setting. The Head Start children scored higher than the controls in both settings, which suggested preschool intervention programs may have influenced the result. The controls tested at home scored the lowest, apparently due to anxiety from having an unfamiliar person in their homes. The Head Start children were unaffected by the environmental factor. In evaluating this study vs. others, the relatively small sample size should be noted: 20 children vs. thousands in other studies.
Mixed studies and statements
In 2005, Barnett and Hustedt reviewed the literature and stated,
Our review finds mixed, but generally positive, evidence regarding Head Start's long-term benefits. Although studies typically find that increases in IQ fade out over time, many other studies also find decreases in grade retention and special education placements. Sustained increases in school achievement are sometimes found, but in other cases flawed research methods produce results that mimic fade-out. In recent years, the federal government has funded large-scale evaluations of Head Start and Early Head Start. Results from the Early Head Start evaluation are particularly informative, as study participants were randomly assigned to either the Early Head Start group or a control group. Early Head Start demonstrated modest improvements in children's development and parent beliefs and behavior.
A 1995 within–family analysis compared subjects with nonparticipant siblings. Mothers who had themselves been enrolled in Head Start were compared to adult sisters who were not. Currie and Thomas separately analyzed white, black and Hispanic participants. White children, who were the most disadvantaged, showed larger and longer lasting improvements than black children.
Head Start 'fade'
'Head Start Fade', in which significant initial impacts quickly fade, has often been observed, as early as second and third grade. One hypothesis is that the decline is because Head Start participants are likely to attend lower-quality schools, which fail to reinforce Head Start gains.
Critical studies and statements
Head Start Impact study
Performance Standards Definition
A 2010 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Impact, examined the cognitive development, social-emotional development, and physical health outcomes of 4,667 three- and four-year-old children in a nationally representative sample of programs across 23 states. Children were randomly assigned to either a Head Start group (participants) or a non-Head Start group (control group). The children in the two groups were similar in all measured characteristics at program entry. Pre-participation assessments of all critical outcome measures were taken. Control group children optionally enrolled in non-Head Start programs. Nearly half of the control-group children enrolled in other preschool programs. Outcome measures covered cognitive development, social-emotional development, health status and access to health care, and parenting practices. Head Start students were split into two cohorts – 3-year-olds with two years of Head Start and 4-year-olds with one year of Head Start. The study found:
- Participants showed positive effects in cognitive skills during their Head Start years, including letter-naming, vocabulary, letter-word identification and applied math problems, although the 'advantages children gained during their Head Start and age 4 years yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade for the sample as a whole. Impacts at the end of kindergarten were scattered. .. ' The gains applied to different skills across cohorts and grades, undermining generalizations about program impacts.
- Participants showed fewer significant improvements in social and behavioral skills, even in the Head Start year, with inconsistent results between the three- and four-year-old cohorts. The four-year-old cohort showed no significant improvement in the Head Start year or kindergarten, but in third grade, parents reported a significant reduction in total problem behavior and social and behavioral skills. Three-year-olds showed multiple, significant improvements in social and behavioral skills, but only for outcomes assessed by parents. Significant negative effects emerged in teacher relationships as rated by first-grade and third-grade teachers; and no significant positive effects for this cohort were reported by teachers for any elementary year.
- By the end of first grade, only 'a single cognitive impact was found for each cohort'. Compared to students in the control group, the 4-year-old Head Start cohort did 'significantly better' on vocabulary and the 3-year-old cohort tested better in oral comprehension.
- Head Start had significant health-related effects, especially in increasing the number of children receiving dental care and having health-insurance coverage. These effects were not consistent, however. For example, while participants increased health-insurance coverage, it did not extend into the third-grade year for either cohort. Parenting practice changes were significant, but applied only to the three-year-old cohort. Most related to discipline, such as reduced spanking or time-outs. The spanking outcome occurred did not last into the first grade. The significant effect on parental reading to children did not last into kindergarten.
A secondary analysis by Peter Bernardy used HSIS data to explore the transient aspect of the initial effects. He considered whether learning skills not examined in the HSIS might be more durable than cognitive skills. These included attention, persistence, and confidence as evaluated by teachers, parents and independent assessors. Improvements in these skills could portend better longer-term outcomes.
Bernardy also examined whether Head Start curriculum or elementary school quality affected outcomes and whether control group attendance at other preschools compromised the results. Only one effect was statistically significant out of the 43 possible comparisons, and none was in the elementary grades. Since statistical significance is generally measured at the 95th percentile, the false positive rate is 5 percent, meaning that approximately 2 'significant' effects would be expected to emerge from the 43 comparisons even if the data were random. The significant effect reported was the parent rating of attention at the end of the Head Start year for three-year-old children. This finding was not buttressed by ratings by independent assessors and teachers.
The HSIS study concludes, 'Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade, a potentially important finding for children's longer-term development.'
According to the Administrative History of the Office of Economic Opportunity, children who finish the program and are placed into disadvantaged schools perform worse than their peers by second grade. Only by isolating such children (such as dispersing and sending them to better-performing school districts) could gains be sustained.
In an op-ed piece in The New York Times, 'Head Start Falls Further Behind', Besharov and Call discuss a 1998 evaluation that led to a national reevaluation of the program. The authors stated that research concluded that the current program had little meaningful impact. However, they did not cite primary sources.
In 2011, Time magazine's columnist Joe Klein called for the elimination of Head Start, citing an internal report that the program is costly and makes a negligible impact on children's well-being over time. Klein wrote:
You take the million or so poorest 3- and 4-year-old children and give them a leg up on socialization and education by providing preschool for them; if it works, it saves money in the long run by producing fewer criminals and welfare recipients .. it is now 45 years later. We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.
W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, rebutted Klein, 'Weighing all of the evidence and not just that cited by partisans on one side or the other, the most accurate conclusion is that Head Start produces modest benefits including some long-term gains for children.'
Fryer and Levitt found no evidence that Head Start participation had lasting effect on test scores in the early years of school.
- Jenny Is a Good Thing, an Academy Award nominated documentary on children and nutrition produced for Project Head Start
Head Start Program Performance Standards 2010 Camaro For Sale
- ^McWayne, C. M., Cheung, K.; Wright, L.; Hahs-Vaughn, D.L.; Thomas, D. (2012). '(no title)'. Educational Psychology (PDF). 104 (3): 878.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
- ^Currie, J.; Thomas, D. (1995). 'Does Head Start Make A Difference?'(PDF). American Economic Review. 85 (3): 341.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
- ^FDA. Memorandum of Understanding.
- ^Gonzalez-Mena, Janet (2009). Child, Family, and Community (Fifth ed.). Pearson Education. ISBN978-0135132302.
- ^'ACF Home » Office of Head Start » About » Leadership'. Administration for Children and Families. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. May 16, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
- ^Vinovskis, Maris A. (2005). The Birth of Head Start. University of Chicago Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN978-0226856728.
- ^Lyndon B. Johnson and the War on Poverty
- ^The Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework
- ^[dead link]
- ^'Part C - Homeless Education'. US Department of Education.
- ^'Who We Are - Tri Counties Regional Center'. tri-counties.org.
- ^'Early Start Services - Tri Counties Regional Center'. tri-counties.org.
- ^'Services in the Early Start Program - Tri Counties Regional Center'. tri-counties.org. December 22, 2017.
- ^Head Start factsheet, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, archived from the original on January 15, 2010Cite uses deprecated parameter
- ^ abcdefghij'The Dubious Promise of Universal Preschool > Publications >'. National Affairs. December 20, 2013. Archived from the original on April 8, 2014. Retrieved April 8, 2014.Cite uses deprecated parameter
- ^Glod, Maria (November 15, 2007). 'Bill to Expand Head Start, Bolster Its Teacher Qualifications Is Approved'. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
- ^'Head Start Act Section 648A'. Archived from the original on October 12, 2008.Cite uses deprecated parameter
- ^NIEER Fact Sheet on Head Start Teachers – July 2003Archived 2008-10-27 at the Wayback Machine
- ^'Family Outcomes Bulletin 2015'.
- ^'2014 Child Outcomes Bulletin'.
- ^Deming, D. (2009). 'Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill Development: Evidence from Head Start'(PDF). American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 1 (3): 111–134. doi:10.1257/app.1.3.111.
- ^Lee, K. (2011). 'Impacts of the duration of Head Start enrollment on children's academic outcomes: Moderation effects of family risk factors and earlier outcomes'. Journal of Community Psychology. 39 (6): 698–716. doi:10.1002/jcop.20462.
- ^Eliana Garces; Duncan Thomas; Janet Currie (September 2002). 'Longer-Term Effects of Head Start'. The American Economic Review. 92 (4): 999–1012. CiteSeerX10.1.1.196.91. doi:10.1257/00028280260344560.
- ^Impact study, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- ^First year executive summary(PDF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- ^Datta, L. (1976). 'The impact of the Westinghouse/Ohio evaluation on the development of project Head Start: An examination of the immediate and longer-term effects and how they came about,' In C. C. Abt (Ed.), The Evaluation of Social Programs (pp. 129–181)
- ^Lee, V. E.; Brooks-Gunn, J.; Schnur, E.; Liaw, F. R. (1990). 'Are Head Start Effects Sustained? A Longitudinal Follow-up Comparison of Disadvantaged Children Attending Head Start, No Preschool, and Other Preschool Programs'. Child Development. 61 (2): 495–507. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02795.x. PMID2344785.
- ^Seitz, V. Abelson, W., Levine, E. & Zigler, E.'Effects of place of testing on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores of disadvantaged Head Start and non-Head Start children', Child Development, 1975
- ^Barnett, W. Steven; Hustedt, Jason T. (January–March 2005). 'Head Start's Lasting Benefits'. Infants & Young Children. 18 (1): 16–24. CiteSeerX10.1.1.644.8716. doi:10.1097/00001163-200501000-00003.
- ^Currie; Thomas (1995), Head Start, LRA, archived from the original on February 7, 2005Cite uses deprecated parameter
- ^ abValerie E. Lee; Susanna Loeb (Spring 1995). 'Where Do Head Start Attendees End up? One Reason Why Preschool Effects Fade Out'. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 17 (1): 62–82. doi:10.2307/1164270. JSTOR1164270.
- ^S. Barnett (1993). 'Does Head Start Fade Out?'. Education Week. 5: 40.
- ^S. Barnett (Winter 1995). 'Long Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes'. The Future of Children. 5 (3): 25–50. doi:10.2307/1602366. JSTOR1602366.
- ^ abcWeigel, Margaret (August 11, 2011). 'Head Start Impact: Department of Health and Human Services Report'. Journalist's Resource.org.
- ^Administrative History of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Vol. I, p. 252, Box 1
- ^Besharov, Douglas J.; Call, Douglas M. (February 7, 2009). 'Head Start Falls Further Behind'. The New York Times. College Park, MD. Retrieved February 8, 2011.
- ^Klein, Joe (July 7, 2011). 'Time to Ax Public Programs That Don't Yield Results'. Time.
- ^Valerie Strauss, 'Does Head Start work for kids? The bottom line', The Washington Post, March 5, 2013.
- ^Fryer; Levitt (2004), Understanding the blacK-white test score gap in the first two years of school(PDF), University of Chicago
- Scott Stossel. Sarge: The Life and Times of Sargent Shriver, 2004, Smithsonian Books, Washington.
- Office of Head Start (official)
- Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center (official)
- National Head Start Association (official)