|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., Annals PrePrint, published online ahead of print October 22, 2007 doi: 10.1196/annals.1425.005 Copyright © 2007 by the New York Academy of Sciences description
1 School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, 969 E. 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60637, United States 2 Psychology, Georgetown University, 301 F White Gravenor, Washington, District of Columbia, 20057, United States
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jludwig{at}uchicago.edu. PrePrint Abstract
A growing body of research suggests that the first few years of life may be a particularly promising time to intervene in the lives of low-income children, although the long-term effects on children of the U.S. Federal government's primary early childhood program—Head Start—remains the topic of debate. In this essay we review what is known about Head Start and argue that the program is likely to generate benefits to participants and society as a whole that are large enough to justify the program's costs. While in principle there could be more beneficial ways of deploying Head Start resources, the benefits of such changes remain uncertain and there is some downside risk. Key Words:
Early childhood education, Early childhood interventions, Head Start, poverty
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
