WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 2013, (Heritage Foundation) – A rigorous and large-scale experimental evaluation, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), finds that the federal Head Start program has essentially no lasting cognitive or behavioral benefits.

The results clearly call into question the federal government’s $8 billion per year commitment to the program.

Far from growing skeptical about Head Start, however, the Obama administration has proposed increasing funding for it — and, in so doing, even touts the “success” of Head Start and the “historic investments” the administration has already made in it.


This would seem to spark an obvious question: Why increase funding for a program that doesn’t work?

Surely the mainstream media, in its role as skeptical watchdog and guardian of the public interest, would rush to pose this question to the president or his press secretary. Yet we cannot find this question in the transcript of any White House press briefing.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

Perhaps the question has been asked at some point in some other forum, but the HHS study should be a central focus of any debate over Head Start. So far, it has not been.

It’s time for reporters covering the White House to start asking pointed questions about Head Start and the other preschool initiatives the president is now proposing.

This article originally appeared on the Heritage Foundation and is reprinted with permission.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.