MIX 'EM UP

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.'”¹ 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.”²

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.

1Kirp, D. L. (2014). The benefits of mixing rich and poor. The New York Times, May 11, Sunday Review section, p. 4. The facts reported in this posting is derived from this article.

2Ibid.