Association for the Betterment of Children
123 Education Lane College Park, MD 20742
Phone: (301)123-0000  Fax: (301)123-1111  Email: educoutreach@abc.org
________________________
December 6, 2007
Laura Barbee Matthews
Head Start Supervisor
Prince George’s County Head Start Program Office
8908 Riggs Road
Adelphi, MD 20783
Dear Ms. Matthews:
We at the Association for the Betterment of Children (ABC) realize the importance of and are committed to
promoting quality education for all children. We are deeply concerned with the current inadequacies of Head
Start. As you know, Head Start programs nationwide have come under much criticism and debate during the
decades of its existence. This scrutiny is not without merit. Research has shown that Head Start does not
meet its fundamental goal of providing an educational advantage to its low-income students so they enter
kindergarten on the same level as middle-income peers.
The effects of inadequate Head Start for low-income students are costly and far-reaching. If Head Start does
not close the gap between children of different socio-economic classes, the educational disparity will persist
and low-income children will be at a continuing disadvantage through life. Children often are unable to fulfill
their maximum potential in Head Start program because their parents do not know how to facilitate learning
in their child and act as a complement to Head Start.
Many education research studies have proven that parents have an overwhelming influence on their child’s
education. In order to improve the educational consistency of Head Start programs, parents must be
included. We propose that your county’s Head Start program undertake a parental involvement initiative that
is designed to teach parents, through group workshops and individual meetings with teachers, how to
continue the foundation of education that your program initiates. For your Head Start program to be as
beneficial as it can be for your county’s low-income children, you need to increase parental involvement that
fosters learning beyond the classroom.
Please read over our attached proposal and consider implementing it into your program. Please contact us
with any questions and concerns regarding the specifics of the proposal either at the phone number or email
address above. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Shanez Jenkins
ABC Program Coordinator
Nancy Tran
Education Outreach Coordinator
Enclosure: Head Start Parental Involvement Proposal
The Remedy to Head Start’s Inadequacies:
A Parental Involvement Initiative
Shanez Jenkins & Nancy Tran
December 6, 2007
ENGL391, Section 1001
University of Maryland, College Park
1
THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF HEAD START
A 1995 New York Times article featured Leonicia Peralta and her daughter, Geraldine,
participants of a home-based Head Start program. Four-year-old Geraldine sat on her mother’s
lap in her living room and watched as Ms. Nunez, a Head Start home visitor, got out her magic
box. The box contained magnets, paper clips, buttons, shells, and a magnifying glass. For the
next hour, she explored the objects with her mother. While Geraldine benefited from substantial
parental involvement in the home-based program, she was part of a lucky minority. Today, as in
1995, nearly all Head Start programs are located outside the home and require less parental
involvement. In fact, as you know, Head Start in Prince George’s County is entirely based in
centers and schools.
Despite its progress and optimistic goals, the Head Start program is currently not
effective in creating positive, long-term outcomes for disadvantaged children. The effectiveness
of Head Start has been debated for much of its 40-year existence. At this time two national
studies are underway, Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) 1997-2010 and
Head Start Impact Study and Follow Up 2000-2009, which seek to address the gap in research on
the program’s national effectiveness within the next few years.
In 1985, a study compiling more than 200 US Department of Health and Human Services
reports claimed that despite scoring higher on some academic measures in the short-term than
low income children who did not attend Head Start, “in the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of
disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start.” The question of long-term effectiveness
of Head Start continues to be an issue today. Promising research supporting Head Start indicates
increases of about ten points, a significant boost, in IQs of Head Start children, but the
2
improvement does not last beyond the kindergarten years. Even Dr. Edward Zigler, a founding
father of Head Start, acknowledges IQ gains are often lost by the third grade.
According to Deborah Stipek, dean of the Stanford University School of Education, the
disparity between low-income and middle class children is “gigantic.” Stipek claims that the lag
in cognitive skills of low-income children at the beginning of kindergarten is a year to a year and
a half behind the skills of middle-income children. Results from the 2003 FACES study indicate
that in the 2003-2004 academic year, the Head Start program reduced the gap between Head
Start children and the national average in vocabulary by 22 percent and in early reading skills by
only 10 percent. Head Start children have a year in the program to make up for at least a year
worth of disadvantage, which for most will be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve, as
FACES findings indicate.
Dr. Rebecca A. Marcon, developmental psychologist and consultant to DC Public
Schools, examined academic outcomes of Head Start and pre-Kindergarten during the 1990s.
Her research indicated a gap between Head Start children and their peers existing through
elementary years. In first grade, pre-K graduates, who average a GPA of 2.77, outscore their
Head Start peers, who average a GPA of 2.31, in all subject areas. The disparity in GPAs persists
in later years. In third grade, Head Start graduates average a 2.21 GPA, which is well under the
2.60 average GPA of traditional pre-K graduates.
Maris A. Vinovskis, a professor at the University of Michigan and past consultant in the
U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, states “while we all should
applaud and reaffirm our commitment to providing equal educational and economic
opportunities for everyone, we cannot pretend that the laudable goals of Title I and Head Start
are being achieved.” The program isn’t living up to the expectations set more than 40 years ago.
3
The goal of Head Start, when it launched in 1965, was to prepare underprivileged youth to enter
kindergarten on the same playing field as middle-income America. Head Start has made
progress toward achieving the goal, but the task is not complete and the goal not fulfilled.
THE PROBLEM WITH INEFFECTIVE HEAD START
The Head Start program’s failure to close the gap between middle-income and lowincome children leads low-income children to fall farther behind once integrated into the
traditional education system and prevents them from reaching their full potential in society.
While the disadvantages of receiving an inadequate early education appear obvious, we need to
address these negative consequences to grasp the magnitude of the problem. The ramifications of
ineffective Head Start programs can be seen in each individual child and at the societal level.
Individual Consequences
Head Start does not provide students with the lasting tools they need to combat the
negative environments and poor quality of the schools they face upon graduation from the
program. Sarah Glazer, a CQ Researcher and Washington Post writer specializing in health,
education, and social policy issues, summarizes the initial logic behind Head Start as “eight
weeks of education, hot meals and medical screenings [that] could miraculously lift children out
of poverty.” While politicians believed this would be effective in 1965, today’s educators and
parents know that the effects of poverty still exist after a year of Head Start. Children continue to
live in poverty when they go home in the afternoon and are reminded of its effects once they
enter the traditional school system.
As low-income children continue their education, they will presumably attend a lowquality school with limited resources, which further contributes to the diminished positive effect
of Head Start and the disparity between low-income children and middle-income children.
4
According to Valerie E. Lee, professor of education at the University of Michigan, and Susanna
Loeb, associate professor of education at Stanford University, “poor children, even with the early
benefits of Head Start, move out of the program into some of our nation’s worst schools… thus,
it is not surprising that such an early boost is undermined.” These schools are characterized by
limited resources, inadequate funding, and unsafe school environments. This increases the
educational difficulties that already exist for these children, making it more difficult for them to
achieve educational equality. Alison Aughinbaugh, economist at the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, states what we all know. Educational success leads to economic success. Thus,
because low-income children perform relatively poorly in school, they are not likely to complete
their education and pursue higher education and are more likely to obtain a low-wage, low-status
job that will keep them in the vicious cycle of poverty and prevent them from getting the
opportunity to advance higher in society. According to US Census Bureau statistics from 2001,
average annual income for individuals without a high school diploma is $18,734 about half of the
average annual income for high school graduates.
According to a 2007 study by the National Dropout Preventions Centers, low
achievement and retention during elementary school along with low socioeconomic status of
families are huge contributors to high school dropouts. Ironically, the federal government created
Head Start to improve these very factors, but Head Start children are still more likely to drop out
than middle income peers. These children continue to suffer because of the environment they
were born into. They start kindergarten at a lower level than middle-class students. As a result,
they often have low achievement, fail to meet the requirements to pass, and must repeat one or
more grades in school. With the educational and economic obstacles mounting against them,
children end up quitting school. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, low-
5
income children drop out at about three times the rate of middle-income children. In 2004, 11
percent of low-income students dropped out of high school, and only 4 percent of middle-income
students dropped out of high school.
Societal Consequences
According to Anne West, a professor and researcher of education policy at the London
School of Economics and Political Science, “the extent to which poverty and disadvantage
remain in some families from one generation to the next is heavily influenced by education.”
Ineffective education runs in poor families. When a child graduating from a Head Start program
continues to be behind his or her peers in education, it leads to another generation of poverty and
poorly educated youth. This new generation, despite having the unlimited potential and promise
of success, is born into a continuing cycle of poverty. Neva Grant, contributor to the “Fighting
Poverty in America” series on National Public Radio, gives a simple explanation for the cycle of
poverty. She states that “if you come from a poor family, you are more likely to drop out of high
school. And if you drop out and stay out of high school, you are more likely to be poor.” The
longer the cycle persists, the harder it is for the next generation to rise above it.
We know that children who attended Head Start will fare better than their low-income
peers who did not attend Head Start, but are worse off than their middle-income peers. A closer
look at this finding reveals that the few long-term gains made by Head Start children are mainly
among white Head Start children. According to Eliana Garces, economist at the University of
California-Los Angeles, the gains that black children make in the Head Start program “fade out”
over time compared to the gains of white children. Research conducted by Janet Currie and
Duncan Thomas, economics professors at Columbia University and Duke University,
respectively, offer specifics into the racial difference in benefits. Head Start reduces white
6
children’s likelihood of repeating a grade by 47 percent, but had no effect on African American
children’s likelihood of repeating a grade. In Garces, Currie, and Thomas also found that white
Head Start graduates were significantly more likely to complete high school, go to college, and
earn more in their twenties than their siblings who did not attend Head Start. However, AfricanAmerican Head Start graduates only experienced a lower likelihood of being booked or charged
with a crime than their non-Head Start graduate siblings; they did not experience the multiple
academic and economic benefits that white Head Start graduates enjoy. These differences in
Head Start outcomes do not reflect innate differences in race, but the different life circumstances
and factors that children of each group face, such as different socio-economic status and
neighborhoods. Not only does Head Start fail to close the gap between low-income children and
middle-income children, it fails to reduce racial disparities that result from economic inequality.
According to the National Office of Head Start, the economic cost to society in federally
funding a Head Start program that provides only short-term effects was more than $6.7 billion in
2007. More than $77 million of that figure is spent on Head Start programs in Maryland. We are
not saying that money spent on Head Start programs is a waste; it is not. Head Start just needs to
use the money more effectively to level the playing field for children of different socioeconomic
backgrounds for the long-term. If the program sets out only to improve the lives of children
during the year of participation and does not even try to give these children and their families the
tools needed to succeed after kindergarten, then it is just a misuse of federal funds and local
efforts, like those provided to your county’s Head Start program.
WHY A NEW APPROACH IS CRUCIAL
Head Start programs address other issues important to the outcomes of low income
children. The family assistance programs created by Head Start institutions are helpful in
7
providing better health care, nutrition, and living environments. As effective as these measures
may be, the most important and decisive factor in advancement in life is education and related
skills. If the Head Start program does not prove to be successful in this major component, the
program cannot expect to succeed in attaining its self-proclaimed goals.
Robert Siegler, Judy Deloache, and Nancy Eisenberg, in the textbook How Children
Develop, describe the earliest and simplest form of learning used as habituation. A child learns a
concept or idea from repeated exposure to it. When children experience learning situations only
while in school, concepts are not reinforced and learning does not occur. This partly explains
why children experience an academic setback during the summer and come into a new school
year slightly behind where they left off the previous school year. Thus, it is essential for parents
to provide young children with an environment that helps them to retain information they learn
during the school day. This comes from parent-child interaction at home.
Parents of low-income Head Start children are more likely to work long hours outside the
home and less likely to have high degrees in formal education. Time constraints caused by
multiple jobs, stress of financial insecurity, and simply not knowing how to assist in educating
their children may restrict low-income parents’ ability to provide a positive learning environment
at home. Parents of children in your Head Start program have little time and energy at the end of
the day to go through their children’s backpacks and decipher what concepts the child is learning
or to call the teacher and ask what they can do to help out. Educators rightfully claim that parents
need to take on a more active role in their child’s schooling. However, many forget that some
parents are using all their effort to provide stable home environments and healthy living
conditions for their children.
8
Many parents do not even know what is required of them in order to help their children
succeed. Most parents show up for teacher conferences only if they are scheduled, look at their
child’s homework only if it requires a signature, and stop into their child’s classroom to
volunteer or check on the child’s progress only if they receive personal notes asking them to do
so. There are, of course, some parents who always check up on their children, bringing in snacks
for the class, and making their presence known to teachers, but these parents are the exception,
not the norm. And they are usually mothers with middle- or upper-class families who stay at
home during the day. These are not the typical parents of your Head Start students.
What separates the first group of parents from the second? The difference between these
two groups of parents is much more than just their income and time availability. The second
group of parents realizes that they need to be present in their children’s education. They get the
letters from teachers at the beginning of the year stating that they are welcome in the classroom
and take that as their personal invitation. The low income parents do not see it this way. They
need to be taught how to help their children get the most out of their early educational years.
Head start offers wonderful programs teaching nutrition and providing healthcare for its students.
An even greater service which will assist in providing students with a more educationally
enriching environment at home would be to teach parents how to assist in making sure their
students maintain skills learned during the day. This will provide a sense of habituation to the
students and aid in remembering key concepts and ideas.
But the more important question is how do we get low-income parents more involved
without putting in so much effort? Based on results from studies conducted by the FPG Child
Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “as more low-income
parents have entered the workforce, Head Start programs [need] to find ways to accommodate
9
their schedules. Expanding parents’ volunteering from home would mean broadening the
definition of parent involvement as well as home-based activities that support their child’s
development and education.” In fact, the study found that parents who participated and
facilitated more educational activities in the home were more likely to be involved in their
child’s Head Start program.
PROPOSAL: WHAT YOU CAN DO TO IMPROVE HEAD START
Prince George’s County’s Head Start program does not have to follow the failed national
model of Head Start-- one that is unable to level the playing field in the long term for lowincome children. According to Helena Duch, a family and education researcher at New York
University, Head Start has long addressed the goal of parent involvement in the program, but the
program’s efforts have proven fruitless as parental involvement in Head Start has declined
substantially over the past fifteen years. The efforts have mainly focused on introducing parents
to available social services, teaching general parenting skills, and educating parents about
nutrition and health rather than on teaching parents the skills they need to facilitate learning and
intellectual development while their children are in Head Start and after they graduate. No one
will argue against the benefits of parental involvement, so why not expand parental involvement
in Head Start to foster academic development? As supervisor of the county’s Head Start
program, you and your team can make changes that will truly benefit PG County’s low-income
children. For Head Start to have an important and lasting influence on economically
disadvantaged children, it needs to refocus its efforts on building early academic skills and
giving parents skills to foster their children’s intellectual development. To accomplish this, your
local Head Start program can launch a parental involvement initiative to teach parents how to
enhance their children’s education.
10
The parental involvement initiative will be mandatory and consist of an introductory
workshop, meetings with the child’s teacher every two months, and a closing workshop. Each
workshop will be held on multiple dates and at different times, allowing for compatibility with
parent schedules, and will last an hour and a half. Meetings will be scheduled in cooperation
between parents and teachers at two-month intervals. At least one parent or guardian will be
required to attend for each child. Given the large proportion of Spanish-speaking families in
some areas of PG County, alternative bilingual workshops and translators will be made available.
Modeled after the basic idea behind the successful “World as a Classroom” workshop series
created in 2004 by the Leaps and Bounds Kindergarten Readiness Program at Arizona State
University, the parent involvement initiative is a family interactive program, which encourages
parents to work and play with children through interactive research-based activities that
encourage school readiness. “World as a Classroom” workshops include activities that can be
conducted by all family members around the house that enhance brain development. The
proposed workshops will emphasize how parents can reinforce concepts taught in Head Start at
home at little to no cost to the family and will focus on three skill areas crucial for school
readiness and success: logical mathematical knowledge, reading and language, and social
competence.
The first workshop will occur at the beginning of the academic year before or just as
children are entering Head Start and will serve as an introduction to parental involvement.
Teachers will introduce parents to the basic academic skills taught in Head Start, what to expect
from their children, and simple, effective ways of incorporating some of the skills learned in
Head Start into everyday interactions. These methods include counting activities to develop math
skills. According to the Canadian Center for Learning, parents can help develop literacy skills in
11
young children by reading to them, regularly teaching new words, and promoting language
development through parent-child discussions. Teachers also present the benefits of parental
involvement, not only to inform those unaware of the advantages, but to reinforce them in the
minds of all parents. At this workshop, parents will receive:

initial exercise books guiding parents in home-friendly learning activities (also
available in Spanish);

contact information for teacher, school, and local Head Start program office;

additional resources for enhancing learning experience (websites, bilingual resources,
etc); and

a contract, in which parents agree to uphold the terms of the program.
There will be four or five one-on-one meetings with the Head Start teacher at two-month
intervals throughout the academic year. Like parent-teacher conferences in elementary and
middle school, parents and teachers at these meetings will discuss and assess the progress of the
child at school and at home. Parents will get to voice their opinions and concerns about how their
children are doing, and the Head Start teacher can recommend ways to enhance the home
learning environment based on skills the children excel at or struggle with at school. Teachers
will provide guidance and assistance to parents who have trouble meeting the requirements.
The closing workshop will occur at the end of the academic year. This workshop will
consist of two parts: a one-on-one session to discuss children’s progress and a group seminar that
will provide parents with resources and skills that will continue children’s overall learning and
development once they leave Head Start. During this closing workshop, parent-child teams will
be awarded and recognized for achieving their goals and expectations.
12
While those opposing this improvement to the program may argue that such a workshop
would require much time, planning, and money, we believe that ensuring the improvement of our
children’s futures is invaluable. The initial costs will be high, but it will be worth the investment.
The local Head Start program must establish a position that will oversee, design, and manage the
workshop. Much work needs to be put into planning and developing the workshop in order to
make it effective and applicable for parents over the course of several months. The main
financial expense for this initiative would be appointing an individual to design and implement
the workshops. The parental involvement coordinator would appoint and train qualified Head
Start teachers to lead and direct the workshops. The time commitment for teachers is minimal,
with participation in workshops adding only a few extra hours each year to their usual time spent
on teaching and related activities. The time commitment required of parents is minimal and
flexible. In long run, the time, funds, and work put into it would prove to be worthwhile, and the
benefits of such a workshop would far outweigh the costs of implementation.
Overall the program aims to increase the amount and quality of parental involvement in
Head Start children’s education. The increased interaction will give both the parents and the
children the needed foundation for a more successful education. This will lead to a higher
importance being placed on education and more achievement for students from your Head Start
program. As parents become more involved now, they will be less intimidated by the
educational system as their children get older and the concepts get harder. Studies conducted by
the NCJW Center for the Child and The Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy at
Yale University have proven that parental involvement, among other advantages, results in
parents teaching more school readiness skills to their children, having higher expectations for
their children’s long-term school success, and providing more educationally stimulating and
13
relevant play items at home. These outcomes are associated with increased school performance
and positive school adjustment. While volunteering with Head Start and being active
participants in the decision making process of local Head Start programs are ideal types of
parental involvement because it directly affects the program, these workshops and meetings will
allow parents who are too busy with work and other life events to still be active participants in
their children’s intellectual development. This initiative will provide parents with a chance to
meet other parents and find social support for cultivating intellectual growth and overall child
well-being.
The Head Start program works hard to provide children with an academic jumpstart.
Your program also works hard to make providing necessities easier for parents. The missing link
seems to be the connection between parents and the educational system. Young Geraldine had
the benefit of extensive parental involvement in her education and learning, as she participated in
a home-based Head Start program. While it would be ideal for all Head Start participants to
experience such a high level of parental involvement and one-on-one interaction between parent
and teacher, home-based programs are not feasible and impossible to implement on a large scale.
Our proposed parental involvement initiative is a cost-effective and practical way to assemble
the missing, yet crucial link between parents and teachers- between home and school.
14
Sources:

Administration for Children and Families, Office for Head Start. (September 21, 2007). Statistical
Fact Sheet Fiscal Year 2007. Retrieved October 31, 2007 from
http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/about/fy2007.html.

Arizona State University, Office of Youth Preparation. (October 2006). Leaps and Bounds: A
Kindergarten Readiness Program. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from
http://www.asu.edu/oyp/leapsandbounds/about.html.

Aughinbaugh, A. (2001). Does Head Start yield long-term benefits? Journal of Human Resources
35(4): 641-665.

Canadian Council on Leanning/Conseil Canadien Sur L’Apprentissage. (February 2006). Lessons
in Learning: How parents foster early literacy. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from
http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Reports/LessonsInLearning/LiL-1Feb2006.htm.

Castro, D. C., Bryant, D. M., Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., & Skinner, M. L. (2004). Parent
involvement in Head Start programs: The role of parent, teacher, and classroom characteristics.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19 (3), 413-430.

Clemmitt, M. (2005, August 26). Evaluating Head Start. CQ Researcher, 15, 685-708. Retrieved
October 14, 2007, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com.proxyum.researchport.umd.edu/cqresearcher/cqresrre2005082600.

Currie, J. and Thomas, D. (June 1995). Does Head Start make a difference? American Economic
Review 85(3): 341-364.

Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs A Technical Report. National Dropout
Prevention Center/Network. Retrieved October 31, 2007
http://www.dropoutprevention.org/resource/major_reports/communities_in_schools.htm

Garces, E., Thomas, D., and Currie, J. (Sept 2002). Longer-term effects of Head Start. American
Economic Review 92(4): 999-1012.

Glazer, S. (1993, April 9). Head Start. CQ Researcher, 3, 289-312. Retrieved October 14, 2007,
from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com.proxyum.researchport.umd.edu/cqresearcher/cqresrre1993040900.

Grant, N. (March 27, 2006). Fighting Poverty in America Series: Helping Dropouts Break the
Cycle of Poverty. National Public Radio. Retrieved December 4, 2007 from
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5300726.

Lee, V.E. and Loeb, S. (1995). Where do Head Start attendees end up? One reason why preschool
effects fade out. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(1): 62-82.

McLarin, K.J. (1995, May 30). In Washington Hts, Head Start begins at home. The New York
Times. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from NYTimes.com,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE4D71F3BF933A05756C0A963958260&s
ec=&spon=&pagewanted=2.
15

Marcon, R.A. (2000). Educational transitions in early childhood, middle childhood, and early
adolescence: Head Start vs. public school pre-Kindergarten graduates. Paper presented at the
National Head Start Conference June 28-July1, 2000.

National Center for Education Statistics (November 2006). Dropout Rates in the United States:
2004. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/dropout/Figure.asp?figure=1&referer=ListOfFigures.

Parker, F.L., Piotrkowski, C.S., Kessler-Sklar, S., Baker, A.J.L., Peay, L., and Clark, B. (1997).
Final Report: Parent Involvement in Head Start.NCJW Center for the Child. Head Start
Executive Summary.

Siegler, Robert, Judy Deloache, and Nancy Eisenberg. How Children Develop. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Worth, 2006.

Vinovskis, M.A. (1999). Do federal compensatory education programs really work? A brief
historical analysis of Title I and Head Start. American Journal of Education 107, 187-209.
Retrieved October 13, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=01956744percent28199905percent29107percent3A3percent3C187percent3ADFCEPRpercent3E2.0.C
Opercent3B2-B.

West, A. (2007). Poverty and Educational Achievement: Why Do Children From Low-Income
Families Tend To Do Less Well At School? The Journal of Poverty & Social Justice. Retrieved
October 31, 2007 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=5&sid=6eec65ae-451b-4c8485c6-dbf50f958a9f^40SRCM2.

Zigler, E. (1997). Project Head Start: Success or Failure? Project Head Start. Eds. Jeanette
Valentine and Edward Zigler. New York: The Free Press, 495-507.

Zill, N. Sorongon, A., Kim, K., Clark, C., and Woolverton, M. (2006). FACES 2003 Research
Brief: Children’s outcomes and program quality in Head Start. Administration for Children and
Families. Retrieved October 22, 2007 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/index.html.
16