- Email: [email protected]
Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge
140
Book reviews
and offers suggestions for teacher preparation and staff development. The content of this book is timely and of critical importance as we move into the 21st century. All early care and education professionals, programs of teacher preparation, and policy level decision-makers should have a copy of this book; eventually it will become as dog-eared and stained through constant use as my own copy!
References California Commission on Families and Children: School Readiness Initiative (2001). Sacramento: California State Department of Education. Garnica, O. (1983). Social dominance and conversational interaction—The Omega child in the classroom. In C. Wallat & J. Green (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education (pp. 49–63). New York: Teachers College Press.
Linda M. Espinosa Early Childhood and Elementary Dept. University of Missouri-Columbia 311 D Townsend Hall Columbia, MO 65211, USA Tel.: +1-573-882-2659; fax: +1-573-884-7492. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.M. Espinosa) Accepted 10 January 2002 PII: S0885-2006(02)00126-6
Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge Jeanne Ellsworth and Lynda Ames (Eds.), Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1998, 352 pages, $22.95 In the introduction to Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge, editors Jeanne Ellsworth and Lynda Ames note that, to date, most Head Start research has focused on child outcomes. Their aim in this book is to present a more complex picture of Head Start and the families it serves paying particular attention to the “institutional and structural realities” that underlie “poverty and social programs” (p. X). What follows is an eclectic collection that includes historical, ethnographic, autobiographical, empirical, and self-reflective texts. The book begins with two chapters that provide one of the most comprehensive and critical reviews of Head Start’s War on Poverty origins and mission. These chapters describe the transformation of Head Start’s original mission from that of empowering low-income communities into a more static child development program. Disparate views of the roots of poverty are represented by the Office of Economic Security’s commitment to “maximum feasible participation” of low-income residents and those of some of Head Start founders who viewed low-income parents as disadvantaged and
Book reviews
141
in need of education. These perspectives have played out in the struggles of the early days of the program including conflicts with school administrators (who did not want parents in Head Start classrooms) and disagreements about hiring and training parents to work in programs. Four chapters describe parental participation in Head Start and a Transition Demonstration Project (a Head Start type program for families with school aged children). The authors’ different portrayals of parent involvement highlight several themes including how class, gender, and racial biases limit parents in making program decisions and assuming positions of power and conflicts between program administrators and parents that most often result in silencing parental input. Three of the accounts note that parents find considerable satisfaction in their volunteer and paid work with Head Start. Mothers report positive changes in their parenting and mothers credit Head Start for increasing their self-esteem resulting in one mother pursuing a college degree. However, these more positive tales are overshadowed with the more negative even sad tone of the chapters. In the programs portrayed, the original mission of Head Start parent involvement, that included community change and program decision making, was sorely lacking. Bilingualism and multiculturalism are addressed in three chapters that include a report commissioned by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, an ethnographic study focusing on Asian parents enrolled in two Head Start programs, and a memoir describing one author’s experience working with Hispanic and Hmong parents. The commissioned study highlights the number of families who speak languages other than English and the relative lack of bilingual Head Start teaching and social service staff resulting in recruiting and serving fewer non-English speaking families. The ethnographic study tells of a conflict between parents and staff over High/Scope curriculum. Despite staff’s ongoing explanations of the program, often with parents who spoke little or no English, parents remained unconvinced of the value of the curriculum. The memoir is more positive in tone focusing on two literacy projects not sponsored by Head Start but attended by many families also enrolled in Head Start. A problem with the memoir is that it lacks the same depth and context of the other chapters and does not provide quotes from or extensive descriptions of the families served. The interface between Head Start’s Transition Demonstration Projects and public school programs is explored in two chapters. The first describes the interplay between a Head Start staff development consultant’s efforts to infuse developmentally appropriate practices into primary school curricula and the school district’s mandated testing schedule that resulted in some “teaching to the test.” Though the teachers generally found value in the consultant’s efforts, some were resistant to change their more teacher-directed practices or were offended when challenged by the consultant. What is missing in this chapter is an acknowledgment that developmentally appropriate practice, because it is a social construct, is embedded in certain views of children and culture (as evidenced in Asian parents responses to the developmentally appropriate High/Scope curricula) and that, in defending this construct, the consultant limited opportunities for some teachers to think deeply about their own practices and beliefs. The other chapter about public schools describes how changes in school administrative practice impacted a Transition Project, particularly how Head Start’s philosophy and that of a “typical hierarchical structure of school administration” (p. 313) conflict. Interviews with Head Start and school administrators at various levels indicate that the original Head Start orientation
142
Book reviews
of the project, had, over time, moved towards a more academic orientation focusing almost exclusively on improving student achievement on standardized tests. Although the Transition Projects are Head Start programs, these two book chapters (and a third examining parent involvement) give the Transition Projects disproportionate attention when compared to the number of families with preschool children served. The message from these two chapters is that Head Start partnerships with public schools are difficult and that despite the aim for the Transition Projects to positively impact the operations of and curricula of public schools, little has changed in the test-driven orientation of the school systems studied. The book ends with two chapters written by the editors that discuss the illusions and hopes of Head Start. Issues include those of widespread public support for and love of the program because it serves “innocent children,” the commonly held belief that families with low incomes are deficient and individually responsible for their economic failings consequently “othered” by middle class society, and the image that Head Start is a revered cultural icon, scarcely affected by developmental psychology research indicating that Head Start has, at best, uneven positive effects on children’s school outcomes. The editors argue that Head Start is a poverty band aid that cannot ameliorate the complex and varied effects of poverty. The original aim of Head Start, to empower parents, has from the program’s beginnings often been derailed because professional know how is valued more than parents’ beliefs and knowledge, and the program has, to a large extent, reified societal gender, class, and racial stereotypes and discrimination. This book is an important contribution to the Head Start literature by placing current Head Start practices such as parent involvement into historical and social contexts. By juxtaposing Head Start tenets such as parent involvement with descriptions of program operations, the authors challenge us to look carefully at what is going on. With the exception of Washington (1995) and Polakov (1993), researchers have been noticeably uncritical of Head Start. This volume adds a much needed critical view of a program that although well loved, is rarely well examined. The inclusion of interpretive research is welcome since, as the editors suggest, developmental psychology perspectives have dominated Head Start research and the quest has been to substantiate positive short- and long-term child outcomes. The Head Start Bureau has funded few interpretive studies even though the basic premise of the national program, to develop programs responsive to local needs and communities, is best studied through case studies and ethnography. This book provides one venue to increase our understanding of local program operations and practices. However, there is unevenness in the interpretive texts that range from ethnographic studies to two personal memoirs and excerpts from a parent’s diary. For researchers it is hard to put these different textual formats into perspective since there is no analysis of these more personal types of writing or how they add to our current understanding of Head Start. Many of the findings and arguments presented are not new and discussed by others writing about Head Start and programs serving families with low-income wages (Delpit, 1988; Kessler, 1991; Lubeck, 1985; Swadener & Lubeck, 1995; Washington, 1995). Undoubtedly, it is valuable to reiterate these arguments. As the authors note, given the overwhelming support for the program, such critiques may have little impact since they escape the Teflon-like support that engulfs Head Start. A lingering question is whether Head Start has really enjoyed such
Book reviews
143
popularity and escape from criticism. One could argue that if indeed the program were so popular and supported, then it would enjoy full funding for all eligible families. Inadequate funding has limited program services and quality and indeed impoverished many Head Start teachers who earn low wages and have few health and retirement benefits (Ceglowski, 1994; Zigler & Muenchow, 1993). The authors do not address this economic history and how it has impacted program operations. This is a particularly important issue because Head Start supporters often compare it to other early childhood models, especially High/Scope (National Association of Child Advocates, 2000) and yet Head Start has never been funded or staffed with that same level of support. Another question that the book raised for me was, is it best to serve families within a model that separates families with low incomes from those in the middle and upper income brackets? Many of the authors suggest that Head Start reifies gender, class, and racial stereotypes, thus “othering” these families yet they did not adequately address how it is the Head Start economic class-based model that may, in part, be responsible for such practices. As Polakov (1993) suggests, the model itself may be the root of the problem and other more integrated and full day service delivery systems need to be developed and implemented, particularly in light of recent welfare reform legislation. An issue that is mentioned briefly but not addressed in this volume is the impact of welfare reform upon the 50% of families on public assistance whose children are enrolled in Head Start. This seems to be one of the greatest challenges facing Head Start and certainly begs the questions what types of services do families with low incomes most need? Does Head Start have a role in delivering services? If so, what might that role be? Is it possible for society to address the short- and long-term conditions that lead to so many American families living in poverty? This volume highlights issues related to these questions but the authors cannot provide answers to these complex issues. One can hope that such work, will, in the future, help to shape the nature and scope of services to families with low incomes.
References Ceglowski, D. (1994). Conversations about Head Start salaries: A feminist analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 367–386. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Kessler, S. (1991). Early education and development: Critique of the metaphor. Early Education and Development, 2, 137–152. Lubeck, S. (1985). Sandbox society, early education in black and white America: A comparative ethnography. London: Falmer Press. National Association of Child Advocates (2000). Making investments in young children: What the research on early care and education tells us. Available: www.childadvocacy.org. Polakov, V. (1993). Lives on the edge: Single mothers and their children in the other America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Swadener, B., & Lubeck, S. (Eds.) (1995). Children and families at promise: Deconstructing the discourse of risk. Albany: State University of New York Press. Washington, V. (1995). Project Head Start: Models and strategies for the twentieth century. New York: Garland.
144
Book reviews
Zigler, E., & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America’s most successful educational experiment. New York: Basic Books.
Deborah Ceglowski Department of Curriculum and Instruction University of Minnesota 370E Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury Drive, SE Minneapolis, MN 55455-0208, USA Tel.: +1-612-624-2304; fax: +1-612-624-8277. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Ceglowski) Accepted 10 January 2002 PII: S0885-2006(02)00125-4
Book reviews
and offers suggestions for teacher preparation and staff development. The content of this book is timely and of critical importance as we move into the 21st century. All early care and education professionals, programs of teacher preparation, and policy level decision-makers should have a copy of this book; eventually it will become as dog-eared and stained through constant use as my own copy!
References California Commission on Families and Children: School Readiness Initiative (2001). Sacramento: California State Department of Education. Garnica, O. (1983). Social dominance and conversational interaction—The Omega child in the classroom. In C. Wallat & J. Green (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of linguistic and cultural diversity in early childhood education (pp. 49–63). New York: Teachers College Press.
Linda M. Espinosa Early Childhood and Elementary Dept. University of Missouri-Columbia 311 D Townsend Hall Columbia, MO 65211, USA Tel.: +1-573-882-2659; fax: +1-573-884-7492. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.M. Espinosa) Accepted 10 January 2002 PII: S0885-2006(02)00126-6
Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge Jeanne Ellsworth and Lynda Ames (Eds.), Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1998, 352 pages, $22.95 In the introduction to Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning the Hope and Challenge, editors Jeanne Ellsworth and Lynda Ames note that, to date, most Head Start research has focused on child outcomes. Their aim in this book is to present a more complex picture of Head Start and the families it serves paying particular attention to the “institutional and structural realities” that underlie “poverty and social programs” (p. X). What follows is an eclectic collection that includes historical, ethnographic, autobiographical, empirical, and self-reflective texts. The book begins with two chapters that provide one of the most comprehensive and critical reviews of Head Start’s War on Poverty origins and mission. These chapters describe the transformation of Head Start’s original mission from that of empowering low-income communities into a more static child development program. Disparate views of the roots of poverty are represented by the Office of Economic Security’s commitment to “maximum feasible participation” of low-income residents and those of some of Head Start founders who viewed low-income parents as disadvantaged and
Book reviews
141
in need of education. These perspectives have played out in the struggles of the early days of the program including conflicts with school administrators (who did not want parents in Head Start classrooms) and disagreements about hiring and training parents to work in programs. Four chapters describe parental participation in Head Start and a Transition Demonstration Project (a Head Start type program for families with school aged children). The authors’ different portrayals of parent involvement highlight several themes including how class, gender, and racial biases limit parents in making program decisions and assuming positions of power and conflicts between program administrators and parents that most often result in silencing parental input. Three of the accounts note that parents find considerable satisfaction in their volunteer and paid work with Head Start. Mothers report positive changes in their parenting and mothers credit Head Start for increasing their self-esteem resulting in one mother pursuing a college degree. However, these more positive tales are overshadowed with the more negative even sad tone of the chapters. In the programs portrayed, the original mission of Head Start parent involvement, that included community change and program decision making, was sorely lacking. Bilingualism and multiculturalism are addressed in three chapters that include a report commissioned by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, an ethnographic study focusing on Asian parents enrolled in two Head Start programs, and a memoir describing one author’s experience working with Hispanic and Hmong parents. The commissioned study highlights the number of families who speak languages other than English and the relative lack of bilingual Head Start teaching and social service staff resulting in recruiting and serving fewer non-English speaking families. The ethnographic study tells of a conflict between parents and staff over High/Scope curriculum. Despite staff’s ongoing explanations of the program, often with parents who spoke little or no English, parents remained unconvinced of the value of the curriculum. The memoir is more positive in tone focusing on two literacy projects not sponsored by Head Start but attended by many families also enrolled in Head Start. A problem with the memoir is that it lacks the same depth and context of the other chapters and does not provide quotes from or extensive descriptions of the families served. The interface between Head Start’s Transition Demonstration Projects and public school programs is explored in two chapters. The first describes the interplay between a Head Start staff development consultant’s efforts to infuse developmentally appropriate practices into primary school curricula and the school district’s mandated testing schedule that resulted in some “teaching to the test.” Though the teachers generally found value in the consultant’s efforts, some were resistant to change their more teacher-directed practices or were offended when challenged by the consultant. What is missing in this chapter is an acknowledgment that developmentally appropriate practice, because it is a social construct, is embedded in certain views of children and culture (as evidenced in Asian parents responses to the developmentally appropriate High/Scope curricula) and that, in defending this construct, the consultant limited opportunities for some teachers to think deeply about their own practices and beliefs. The other chapter about public schools describes how changes in school administrative practice impacted a Transition Project, particularly how Head Start’s philosophy and that of a “typical hierarchical structure of school administration” (p. 313) conflict. Interviews with Head Start and school administrators at various levels indicate that the original Head Start orientation
142
Book reviews
of the project, had, over time, moved towards a more academic orientation focusing almost exclusively on improving student achievement on standardized tests. Although the Transition Projects are Head Start programs, these two book chapters (and a third examining parent involvement) give the Transition Projects disproportionate attention when compared to the number of families with preschool children served. The message from these two chapters is that Head Start partnerships with public schools are difficult and that despite the aim for the Transition Projects to positively impact the operations of and curricula of public schools, little has changed in the test-driven orientation of the school systems studied. The book ends with two chapters written by the editors that discuss the illusions and hopes of Head Start. Issues include those of widespread public support for and love of the program because it serves “innocent children,” the commonly held belief that families with low incomes are deficient and individually responsible for their economic failings consequently “othered” by middle class society, and the image that Head Start is a revered cultural icon, scarcely affected by developmental psychology research indicating that Head Start has, at best, uneven positive effects on children’s school outcomes. The editors argue that Head Start is a poverty band aid that cannot ameliorate the complex and varied effects of poverty. The original aim of Head Start, to empower parents, has from the program’s beginnings often been derailed because professional know how is valued more than parents’ beliefs and knowledge, and the program has, to a large extent, reified societal gender, class, and racial stereotypes and discrimination. This book is an important contribution to the Head Start literature by placing current Head Start practices such as parent involvement into historical and social contexts. By juxtaposing Head Start tenets such as parent involvement with descriptions of program operations, the authors challenge us to look carefully at what is going on. With the exception of Washington (1995) and Polakov (1993), researchers have been noticeably uncritical of Head Start. This volume adds a much needed critical view of a program that although well loved, is rarely well examined. The inclusion of interpretive research is welcome since, as the editors suggest, developmental psychology perspectives have dominated Head Start research and the quest has been to substantiate positive short- and long-term child outcomes. The Head Start Bureau has funded few interpretive studies even though the basic premise of the national program, to develop programs responsive to local needs and communities, is best studied through case studies and ethnography. This book provides one venue to increase our understanding of local program operations and practices. However, there is unevenness in the interpretive texts that range from ethnographic studies to two personal memoirs and excerpts from a parent’s diary. For researchers it is hard to put these different textual formats into perspective since there is no analysis of these more personal types of writing or how they add to our current understanding of Head Start. Many of the findings and arguments presented are not new and discussed by others writing about Head Start and programs serving families with low-income wages (Delpit, 1988; Kessler, 1991; Lubeck, 1985; Swadener & Lubeck, 1995; Washington, 1995). Undoubtedly, it is valuable to reiterate these arguments. As the authors note, given the overwhelming support for the program, such critiques may have little impact since they escape the Teflon-like support that engulfs Head Start. A lingering question is whether Head Start has really enjoyed such
Book reviews
143
popularity and escape from criticism. One could argue that if indeed the program were so popular and supported, then it would enjoy full funding for all eligible families. Inadequate funding has limited program services and quality and indeed impoverished many Head Start teachers who earn low wages and have few health and retirement benefits (Ceglowski, 1994; Zigler & Muenchow, 1993). The authors do not address this economic history and how it has impacted program operations. This is a particularly important issue because Head Start supporters often compare it to other early childhood models, especially High/Scope (National Association of Child Advocates, 2000) and yet Head Start has never been funded or staffed with that same level of support. Another question that the book raised for me was, is it best to serve families within a model that separates families with low incomes from those in the middle and upper income brackets? Many of the authors suggest that Head Start reifies gender, class, and racial stereotypes, thus “othering” these families yet they did not adequately address how it is the Head Start economic class-based model that may, in part, be responsible for such practices. As Polakov (1993) suggests, the model itself may be the root of the problem and other more integrated and full day service delivery systems need to be developed and implemented, particularly in light of recent welfare reform legislation. An issue that is mentioned briefly but not addressed in this volume is the impact of welfare reform upon the 50% of families on public assistance whose children are enrolled in Head Start. This seems to be one of the greatest challenges facing Head Start and certainly begs the questions what types of services do families with low incomes most need? Does Head Start have a role in delivering services? If so, what might that role be? Is it possible for society to address the short- and long-term conditions that lead to so many American families living in poverty? This volume highlights issues related to these questions but the authors cannot provide answers to these complex issues. One can hope that such work, will, in the future, help to shape the nature and scope of services to families with low incomes.
References Ceglowski, D. (1994). Conversations about Head Start salaries: A feminist analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 367–386. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Kessler, S. (1991). Early education and development: Critique of the metaphor. Early Education and Development, 2, 137–152. Lubeck, S. (1985). Sandbox society, early education in black and white America: A comparative ethnography. London: Falmer Press. National Association of Child Advocates (2000). Making investments in young children: What the research on early care and education tells us. Available: www.childadvocacy.org. Polakov, V. (1993). Lives on the edge: Single mothers and their children in the other America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Swadener, B., & Lubeck, S. (Eds.) (1995). Children and families at promise: Deconstructing the discourse of risk. Albany: State University of New York Press. Washington, V. (1995). Project Head Start: Models and strategies for the twentieth century. New York: Garland.
144
Book reviews
Zigler, E., & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America’s most successful educational experiment. New York: Basic Books.
Deborah Ceglowski Department of Curriculum and Instruction University of Minnesota 370E Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury Drive, SE Minneapolis, MN 55455-0208, USA Tel.: +1-612-624-2304; fax: +1-612-624-8277. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Ceglowski) Accepted 10 January 2002 PII: S0885-2006(02)00125-4