RM>It's the same guess that leads some to say that if the
RM>others totally catch up, why are we throwing money away?
RM>That's what's confusing me; did we accomplish anything or
RM>not?
CB>Sounds like you want to make a "political" judgment.  Go for it.
RM>Whoa!  Don't get defensive here, Chuck; I'm not making ANY
RM>judgment, I'm simply asking questions...
CB>I wasn't defensive, just thought I read into your (first) quote above 
CB>that you wanted to draw a conclusion but were holding back for some
CB>reason.
What I was trying to do was to state the position that is,
as you later point out, often taken by opponents of the
program; Devil's advocate if you will... I understand that
it would be easy to think that this was MY point of view as
well, but that wasn't the case...
RM>You're telling me, essentially, that by fourth grade there is 
RM>absolutely no difference between headstarted and non-headstarted students.
CB>No - I'm telling you that there's no statistically significant 
CB>difference as measured by the reading and math tests.
Ok... No detectable difference....
CB>What appears to be significant to ME is that it does appear possible 
CB>to make a difference in the educational success of disadvantaged 
CB>children for a 3 or 4 year period of time by providing opportunities 
CB>above and beyond what is offered in school.
Which, I agree, is a factor to consider...
CB>I think a "booster" program for these kids, offered during the summer 
CB>between 3rd and 4th grade, would be worth experimenting with.
Perhaps...  You see this as, perhaps, a disuse problem?  In
other words, over time their environment leads them to not
use or forget what they picked up in terms of skills or 
study tactics, or whatever?  Or perhaps this is more of an
emotional or attitudinal boost which wears off?
RM>My second reaction is, how do I answer a critic who asks: "Why are 
RM>we doing this if it has no noticeable impact"?  You want to make this 
RM>person's comment "political", as if that makes it irrational or
RM>un-American, or something?
CB>No, I didn't intend to make the discussion political - the question you 
CB>posed forms the basis for the differing political positions of Democrats 
CB>and Republicans on the issue at the national level.
Which WAS the point, of course....    ;-)
CB>You read WAY too much into my words (I said nothing about irrational 
CB>or un-American comments - only you did) - I only suggested that YOU 
CB>wanted to make a political statement.
Which reads somewhat into MY words ... The word 
"political" is often suggestive that what is being said is 
not to be taken seriously; as I say, the question, in this
case, is both understandable and reasonable to make....
CB>Re-read some of the words in your (first) quote above "...why are 
CB>we throwing money away?" and get a sense of where you were headed.
Perhaps an erroneous sense?  You left out the "some would
say" part; when I'm speaking my own words, I'm not shy about
proper attribution!       ;-)
CB>You COULD have asked the question, "...is there a better 
CB>way to spend these funds?"  or you could have asked, "...is the program 
CB>accomplishing what we want it to?", but you did not - you chose words 
CB>that were intended to raise the emotional and/or political level of the 
CB>conversation.  Your words are not nearly as neutral as you'd like to 
CB>believe .
I understand, Chuck, but these these weren't MY words; they
were the commonly used words of opponents of the program...
CB>The district has found that the advantage for the participating 
CB>children lasts for 2 or 3 years - then it fades, just as does 
CB>the Head Start advantage.
Hmmm.... Seems like this should be some type of recognized
psychological phenomenon... I wonder if there's anything in
that field that would help explain what is going on?
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * "OS/2 is destined to be the most important OS" - Bill Gates
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------