Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Actually almost all early intervention programs have gains that fade out. I think there are a couple of small intensive ( read expensive) ones that show very small gains in a few areas into adulthood but most do not. IMO, it's a feel good use of money, but ineffective.
That doesn't show that early intervention is ineffective. It only shows that early intervention, by itself, doesn't do the trick. Nor should anyone expect it to. Saying that Head Start is ineffective because the gains don't last is like saying that exercise is ineffective after you exercise for 1-2 years and then don't exercise for the next 12.
Anonymous wrote:I think the point about Universal preK causing a shift towards more academic preschools is a good point.we already push kids to do too much too early. We don't need MCPS pushing for more assessments at an even earlier age!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there any evidence showing head start kids perform better in an universal preK enviroment?
That's a good question.
The Head of the Heard article above shows that Universal PreK might even be detrimental to lower income kids.
We don't need a preK program for middle/higher income kids. That's not a wise use of funding. Where is the money for Universal PreK going to come from?
Anonymous wrote:Is there any evidence showing head start kids perform better in an universal preK enviroment?