I see very little evidence that substantiates your assertions. "Facts and Figures" can often be distorted to support a program, whether it is effective or not, and I think that most of us can come up with a good example of a gov't program that turned out to be disaster, even though it's supporters insisted that it would be a success. I'm not saying that Head Start is a 'disaster', but am very skeptical as to it's accomplishments. There is little substitute for good parenting, Head Start or NOT.<quoted text>
I am responding to your post: "What a crock, this is just another liberal ploy for more money for government subsidized baby sitting."
First, Head Start supports children ages 3-5, NOT 18-month toddlers as you allege.
Second, I take issue with your description of Head Start as "government subsidized baby sitting." Participation in Head Start has proven to improve grades and learning throughout K-12, as well as improved job prospects and lower incarceration rates. Wouldn't you rather have our youth wind up as employed taxpayers, or do you prefer to continue building prisons?
If the best anti-welfare program is a job, then why oppose programs that greatly increase the likelihood of students graduating into the work force?
Minneapolis spends more money PER PUPIL than any other public school district in the STATE, yet it's students perform the WORST. NOW, the Feds just gave them $28 MILLION dollars, and some think that that will 'fix' everything. I would bet against that prediction. Most of it will go into teacher's salaries who fail to perform well, administrators who roll up huge expense accounts, and overbloated retirement benefits.