[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

212,000 staff = $6.8 Billion? How does that work out?
Even if I account for food at unreasonably high prices (for children in assistance):
900,000 kids x $10 per day x 300 days = $2.7 billion

I suppose buildings are expensive.

At any rate: as an education program we should look at whether it's effective. We can talk *should* all day: but it's always trumped by *is*.

If it fails as an education system, we can look at it as an extension of welfare in terms of baby-sitting and feeding of impoverished children. Again: if it's effective it seems worthwhile (though, if it's benefit is only as a daycare, and not as a school: we can consider whether it's structure can be changed to match what it effectively does).

Isn't that a bit cheap?

6.8 billion/ 212,000 = $32,000 per person.

Sounds like a bargain.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I'm just going to say that I know someone who totally abused the head start program and food stamps when his income was literally 4xs what Lee was describing. It just was mostly in the form of grants and such, not in the traditional form of cash. As such it really makes me question the current incarnation of it as to whether we need to scrap and replace.

It concerns me that he got so much assistance when h didn't need it and guys like Lee are struggling.

I know this is a separate issue...

But for me, that ways in on my opinion that it probably needs to be kicked and replaced by something more sensible and more clearly able to cope with mooches. (I am sorry, but if you are using foodstamps with as much cash as this guy had... it signals a problem.)

This definitely effects my opinion on these issues. When I was younger I new a guy pretty well that fleeced the system. During the time I knew him he probably averaged about $40,000 a year and his girlfriend made about $10,000 in an area where the average household income was less than $30,000. They lived with her though and everything was in her name so their kid was in head start, they got food stamps, and what irked me the most was a government agency paid most of their rent...he used to brag that they only paid $30.00 a month or something stupid like that. And then he worked as a deck hand for me for a while and was always asking for a draw so he could take weekend trips and what not.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

212,000 staff = $6.8 Billion? How does that work out?
Even if I account for food at unreasonably high prices (for children in assistance):
900,000 kids x $10 per day x 300 days = $2.7 billion

I suppose buildings are expensive.

At any rate: as an education program we should look at whether it's effective. We can talk *should* all day: but it's always trumped by *is*.

If it fails as an education system, we can look at it as an extension of welfare in terms of baby-sitting and feeding of impoverished children. Again: if it's effective it seems worthwhile (though, if it's benefit is only as a daycare, and not as a school: we can consider whether it's structure can be changed to match what it effectively does).

Largely this is my issue too. If the money is being spent where they say it's being spent and it's accomplishing what they say it will accomplish it's easier for me to support these things. I just question whether that's happening here.

Originally Posted by normajean777

Isn't that a bit cheap?

6.8 billion/ 212,000 = $32,000 per person.

Sounds like a bargain.

Are you saying $32,000 a year per person is a bargain? To me that sounds expensive for kids in elementary school. But considering the head start program seems to be at least to a degree, and maybe it could be said largely, a day care program $32,000 sounds like a boat load of money to me.

[Dwight Schrute]

bottom line: show some statistics

and as a family who homeschools their kids, I admit up front my bias: the government is a crappy parent.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

It's sold to the American people as vital education needed by low income families. Roughly 35% of the kids are three years old and another 15% are two years old or younger. That's not educational services....that's babysitting. I've never liked it when the government pitches something as being this when it is really that.

First I gotta say, that really shows a lack of understanding of early childhood development. Trust me, it's not babysitting, it is very much educational services.

Another part of these services that seems to be getting overlooked is that they are made available to children with disabilities. There is a gap between Part C and Part B services for children with disabilities that is filled by the headstart programs.

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I don't like the fact that the government is doing what parents, aunts/uncles, grandparents should be and have been doing for generations....teaching the basics. I'm sorry, but your kid should now how to count to 10, add simple numbers, say their alphabet, have a basic understanding of the reading/writing/spelling building blocks (you know like "A is for Apple") by the time they're 4 years old with out a class room. It's real easy-- you're putting on Johny's shoes anyway you just talk to him while you're doing it "OK Johny lets put your shoes on. OK first one shoe, and now the other shoe. That's two shoes. Do you have the same number of hands as you do feet? You do? How many is that? That's right it's two. GOOD JOB BUDDY!!!!" (big smile from little Johny)

I guess in short I don't like the government and department of education replacing the family.

I'm not saying pull the rug out from under these kids. But I'm not a fan of this particular program and the way its sold.

I can see what you're saying, and I agree with some of it. But I think the part you're overlooking is that we have become a culture that doesn't value families. For so many people dual incomes is a necessity for survival. I have worked with so many families who would love to have one parent home with the children, but they are working multiple jobs just to get by and simply can't do it. For many it is a cultural reality, not a lack of parenting skill. I will say however that there are many many parents who are not as involved as they could/should be and would rather let the TV raise their kids.

In both of these cases however I feel the ultimate problem is that our culture here in America doesn't value education, and doesn't value the family. Until we change those two things we will always have education problems. This doesn't just apply to headstart programs either, it goes all the way up through k-12


One other part of the Headstart program that hasn't been mentioned is that it isn't just a program where parents leave their children there and go. Out here there are two separate programs. One is a five day a week program where parents leave their children. The other is three days a week and the parents stay at Headstart with their children.


Ultimately I have to say keep it. I've worked too closely with it for too long and I've seen how much good it does for so many people

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Isn't that a bit cheap?

6.8 billion/ 212,000 = $32,000 per person.

Sounds like a bargain.

I had an errant decimal. $32k-per-staff (and it's gonna be a lot lower in reality once you hit all the other costs.. like buildings, water, food, transportation, power, etc) isn't all that bad.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Are you saying $32,000 a year per person is a bargain? To me that sounds expensive for kids in elementary school. But considering the head start program seems to be at least to a degree, and maybe it could be said largely, a day care program $32,000 sounds like a boat load of money to me.

Per staff, not per child.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I had an errant decimal. $32k-per-staff (and it's gonna be a lot lower in reality once you hit all the other costs.. like buildings, water, food, transportation, power, etc) isn't all that bad.

I figured, and agree. How they manage to employ 212,000 staff, buy food for millions of kids, and do everything else on that budget is beyond me. Not that I'm saying the program is cheap or necessary, I'm saying it might be cheap for such a large scale one.