Compensatory education for cultural deprivation

1965 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-491
Author(s):  
Susan B. Silverman
1980 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 572-573
Author(s):  
HUBERTO MOLINA

1972 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ned A. Flanders ◽  
Jane A. Stallings ◽  
William P. Coats ◽  
Eleanor Maccoby

1973 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 340
Author(s):  
W. A. L. Blyth ◽  
Maurice Chazan

2012 ◽  
Vol 114 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Barbara Beatty ◽  
Edward Zigler

In this article, Edward Zigler, interviewed by Barbara Beatty, talks about a turning point in the history of Head Start that reveals how policy choices, bureaucracy, and science came together when he was told to phase out the program in 1970. New to Washington, Zigler learned that President Richard M. Nixon's domestic policy advisor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had put forth the Family Assistance Plan, favored direct support for mothers and families over compensatory preschool education. Zigler saw how both the methodologically flawed 1969 Westinghouse study on the supposed fadeout of Head Start gains and Arthur Jensen's controversial 1969 article on the supposed failure of compensatory education became politicized and influenced arguments about Head Start's future. With President Nixon's veto of the 1971 Child Development Act, Zigler witnessed how competing policies, bureaucracies, and political ideologies could block support for universal child care and comprehensive services for children and families. After many years of consulting to Head Start and research on applied child development, he sees public schools as sites for coordination of social welfare programs that can improve access to high-quality health care, education, child care, and family services, as in his Schools for the 21st Century model.


1987 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Stephen Lilly

The lack of focus on special education in the Sizer, Boyer, and Goodlad reports, as well as Nation at Risk, is analyzed. It is posited that mere neglect might not account for this lack of attention and that current shortcomings of special education services might lead the authors of the reports to focus on improvement of general education opportunities for all students rather than increased compensatory education. In its current state, special education for the “mildly handicapped” might well be seen by these authors as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. To remedy this situation, special educators must increasingly see themselves as members of the general education community and work toward more effective integration of special and general education.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document