PROMOTING POTENTIAL 305lum. And, indeed, at least some of these eff orts seemed to result in
improved school per for mance.
However, there has been continual debate about the true nature of
these eff ects, what really mediates them, and how durable they are.^27 For
example, it has been suspected that apparent gains simply refl ect the sym-
pathetic, but temporary, attention from educational and psychological
workers— a diff er ent kind of “environment” from that conceived to be
operating. So the eff ects wane when the attention is removed.
Th e other obvious way of “closing the gap” has resulted in a “war on
schools” (meaning teachers and curricula), including the greater demand
for preschool experiences. Large and far- reaching compensatory educa-
tion programs have been created to help disadvantaged children reach
their full “potential.” In the United States, these include Head Start, the
Chicago Child- Parent Center Program, High/Scope, Abecedarian Early
Intervention Proj ect, the Milwaukee Proj ect, and the 21st Century Com-
munity Learning Center. Parallel eff orts have taken place in the United
Kingdom and other parts of Eu rope, and in developing countries.
However, there has been constant debate about their eff ectiveness.
Some evaluations have claimed some success in boosting children’s IQs
and/or school attainments. Others have claimed that the gains “wash out”
over the longer term. Still others report little or no gain at all. For exam-
ple, an evaluation of Head Start by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Ser vices in 2010 suggested “small” eff ects. A further evaluation
suggested that “on average, Head Start centers perform similarly to non-
Head Start centers. Our results suggest that expectations for the Head
Start program may be too high.”^28
Some critics warned that the provision of a few hours of home help
or supplementary schooling is not getting at the root of the matter. In a
review, Lynette Friedrich Cofer describes the eff orts as a “power ful ex-
ample of the unintended consequences of applying a linear, single causal
approach to complex social prob lems.” She also warns that “the question
of how we conceptualize human development is central to the dilemma.”^29
Fi nally, an intensive focus on the narrow goal of boosting test scores
has become self- defeating, according to increasing numbers of teachers,
community workers, and academics. I have much more to say about that
in chapter 11.
This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:58:05 UTC