Nothing says federalism more to
some people than the notion of local control or state's rights. That
is not my take of the concept. To me, federalism means joining a
union; being an equal member in a federation of members. To say the
US is a federation means that we are citizens of a grand association
in which we attempt to strive toward equality, if not of results,
at least in terms of opportunity and equal standing before the law.
Let me stretch the argument a bit more: if we don't strive toward
equal opportunity, we will not establish or maintain equality before
the law. Left to our own devices among our fellow citizens, as in
liassez-faire economy, before long, there will be a growing
inequality. This is because we have varying degrees of natural
abilities and once some people gain advantages, they will use their
increased resources to increase their power to further augment their
advantages. We see this process all the time. Here in the US, we
are currently seeing the process increase in velocity. As the rich
are gaining an ever increasing portion of national income and of
total wealth, they are in positions to increasingly affect public
policy. There is currently a literature out there detailing how this
is happening. In turn, such a development is undermining the quality
of our democracy and republican form of government.
Therefore, I see any attempt to
bolster opportunity in our national scene as activating a federalist
principle. As a federalist, I was heartened to read an account of
developments in the Head Start program. But first the bad news.
Head Start is a surviving program
from Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty initiatives. Generally, the
program was designed for preschoolers from low income households.
Unfortunately, the overall estimation of how well the program
prepares low income kids for kindergarten has not been good. One of
the latest extensive evaluations of the program was a federal
government review that was published in 2012. This report “concluded
that children who participated in Head Start were not more successful
in elementary school than others … 'no better than random.'”
Of course, its not as if this news is met with unequivocal sorrow.
There are those who see it as vindication of their practical and
ideological antagonism. For them, Head Start is just another one of
those liberal efforts in which a lot of taxpayer dollars have been
squandered with nearly nothing to show for the expenditures. But
should this report just preclude a finality to the effort? Should it
mean that in terms of this federalist principle that we should just
give up on this avenue to promote equal opportunity?
Well, hold on. There are signs
that things are getting better; that there have been, of late,
improvements to the program. There is also other data that show the
effects of the program can be delayed; that former participants have
shown better results when measured during their teenaged years. It
seems that one thing the program has instilled among the youngsters
it has serviced is character. This has had a “sleeper effect.”
But of more importance is that when one analyzes the data more
closely, we find a promising trend. That is, when a specific Head
Start site is located where the center serves both low income and
middle to upper income kids, the low income youngsters do quite well
in school. This seems to be the case without noting any harm to the
more advantaged kids. Exclusively low income centers are generally
underfunded and manned with poorly paid staffs. But in centers that
have a mixed income arrangement, the higher income parents make sure
that the centers are not under resourced. Beyond that, the kids of
the varied income groups teach each other. They mix, socialize, and
share their stories and understanding of the lessons they are
receiving. David L. Kirp reports on several such sites.
One such case is the Rosemount
Center in Washington, D. C. That case is more of an accident in that
a higher income neighborhood happens to be in the vicinity of a low
income area. Geographically, the situated families from these two
areas have Rosemount as the place to send their children. There is a
tuition fee attached to attending this center, but that is based on a
sliding scale. The poorer kids are covered by Head Start funds, but
the better off families pay from $9,600 to $20,400 depending on their
income. It seems the more advantaged families are doing quite well –
some live in homes valued in seven figures. But is this “accident”
pointing toward a workable model for Head Start programs to make them
more effective?
There is evidence supporting this
approach. A 2007 Connecticut study showed a marked improvement by
youngsters who attend these mixed income Head Start preschool sites
over those who attend centers servicing solely low income kids.
Quoting a staff person who works in one of these mix income sites:
“Vocabulary and background knowledge play a major role in student
learning and interacting with mixed-income students allows for richer
discussions among students.”
I can imagine enormous – maybe
insurmountable – logistical obstacles in implementing a model for
Head Start that would attempt to “integrate” their centers with
kids from various income level homes. But where possible, perhaps
this approach can make a meaningful difference and promote a more
truly equitable educational effort and, in turn, a more equitable
society.
