284 K-12 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
conditions accounted for more than 60% of the impact of poverty on achievement. The
greatest impact is realized for the nation’s poor children, a gap Head Start was created to
close. Research on the burden of poverty in children has been constant as shown in the work
of Hodgkinson (1992, 2003), Rothstein (2004), and many others. Yet the Fade remains
unabated.
As used here, the “Fade” means that although they have had an early year of schooling,
Head Start participants do not show a measurable difference in grades two, three,
and four schooling outcomes when compared with peers who did not attend Head Start. The
data suggest the following: a) Head Start participants may not master readiness skills required
for success in schooling and/or b) Subsequent schooling experiences in kindergarten (K) and
early grades (1–3) do not reinforce Head Start.
Until now, emphasis has been on evaluating Head Start outcomes. The present study was
a pilot test of the second alternative, theories related to subsequent conditions. Early
evaluations showed small gains in achievement for Head Start children in vocabulary and pre-
reading skills (Jacobson, 2007). “Though some participants show increased gains in I.Q., the
positive effects fade or completely disappear by third grade in most programs” (Barnett, 1993,
p. 40). Impoverished children who enter school behind their peers in language and math skills
significantly increase their education risk in primary and later grades (Rothstein, 2004).
Maylone’s (2002) research on poverty and achievement showed that children in a wealthy
district in Michigan with a median income per family of over $132,000 obtained predictably
higher on the grade-four Michigan Education Achievement Program (MEAP) over peers for
whom the average income per family was $53,000.
EARLY RESEARCH AND EVALUATION RESULTS
The Westinghouse Learning Corporation completed the first national Head Start
Evaluation study in 1969. Evaluators assessed results from students enrolled in Head Start
summer programs for the years 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968. No pretest was given because of
the students’ age and development. Using two tests of cognitive ability, researchers tested 148
Head Start children and a comparison group of children not enrolled in Head Start using two
tests of cognitive ability. Though problems with validity were noted, results showed that
children not enrolled in Head Start outscored those children enrolled in the program. The stark
results prompted authors to conclude: “Results from the summer program are so negative that
it is doubtful that any change in design would reverse the findings” (Cicirelli et al., 1969, p.
245 as cited by Magidson & Sorbom, 1982, p. 321). Examination of subtest results
disaggregated by socio-economic status (SES) showed that children who scored better on the
tests came from higher SES backgrounds. Later reviews of the data yielded more moderate
results. As reported in Magidson and Sorbom (1982), Head Start summer programs had small
beneficial outcomes.
Head Start programs were initially designed from the theory that a child’s self-concept
and family relationships had the greatest influence on achievement. Later research has shown
that early programs probably had the theory wrong (Shapiro, 1982) and that the underlying
theory was misguided (Cicirelli et al., 1969 as cited by Shapiro, 1982). The early theory
proposed that improving a student’s self-concept would improve achievement. Later research
(e.g., the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio [STAR, 1985-1990] longitudinal experiment)
showed that improved achievement strengthened self-concept as measured by the SCAMIN
test (Word et al., 1990).