Pre K School For SA (Del Rio: homes, buying, school district)

[Pancho-Villa]

Funny that no one will admit to voting for it! Well, someone did...c'mon and fess up.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Pancho-Villa

Funny that no one will admit to voting for it! Well, someone did...c'mon and fess up.

Proudly. But you could have guessed that.

pre-K is the norm in most developed countries, for good reason. There's a clear need for it, and many kids had slipped through the cracks. Pre-K-4-SA offers pre-K to a much broader range of kids than Head Start was offering, and a higher standard than the current offerings by the districts. We need to treat pre-K as we do elementary education. it's just as important. That requires paying teachers a realistic wage based on their education levels.

Study after study has shown that quality pre-K is a huge determinant in later academic success. For higher income kids, the difference isn't so significant, for lower income kids, the difference is huge. While the reasons for this distinction have not been fully elucidated, most likely it's because higher income kids have access to other resources - not just private pre-k, but programs which cost to supplement their at home environment AND more educated parents who have the ability to teach their kids.

If we have any hope of changing the future, we need to start with the future - the kids. it's a small tax on things I have the money to buy, and well worth it.


I would gladly fund it for all kids in the City of San Antonio, but that requires a higher tax which is a hard pill to swallow for most.

[geargrinder70]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Proudly. But you could have guessed that.

pre-K is the norm in most developed countries, for good reason. There's a clear need for it, and many kids had slipped through the cracks. Pre-K-4-SA offers pre-K to a much broader range of kids than Head Start was offering, and a higher standard than the current offerings by the districts. We need to treat pre-K as we do elementary education. it's just as important. That requires paying teachers a realistic wage based on their education levels.

Study after study has shown that quality pre-K is a huge determinant in later academic success. For higher income kids, the difference isn't so significant, for lower income kids, the difference is huge. While the reasons for this distinction have not been fully elucidated, most likely it's because higher income kids have access to other resources - not just private pre-k, but programs which cost to supplement their at home environment AND more educated parents who have the ability to teach their kids.

If we have any hope of changing the future, we need to start with the future - the kids. it's a small tax on things I have the money to buy, and well worth it.


I would gladly fund it for all kids in the City of San Antonio, but that requires a higher tax which is a hard pill to swallow for most.

Chaka I seem to remember reading the same things you listed above about the goals of the Head Start program. Now here we are 50 years after Head Start began and what has it accomplished? I see no mass improvements. Wasn't that program supposed to help break the cycle of poverty in our nation? We still have the exact same problems now as we did back in 1964. Why do you think pre k will be any different?

[SAAggiemom]

I do not agree with the importance of preK 4 . . . . BUT if it is so darn important, it should be provided to ALL 4 years olds. Period.

[pr57001]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Wait, so you want to pay highly educated teachers even *less* than they are currently paid which is already pathetically low? Really?

Are we still making this same tired Argument?

http://nisd.net/hr/sites/nisd.net.hr...ULE-PUBLIC.pdf says a starting teacher at NISD with zero years experience makes $49,790, excluding supplements for 187 days of work. How much would be "enough" for someone of this experience level?

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Proudly. But you could have guessed that.

pre-K is the norm in most developed countries, for good reason. There's a clear need for it, and many kids had slipped through the cracks. Pre-K-4-SA offers pre-K to a much broader range of kids than Head Start was offering, and a higher standard than the current offerings by the districts. We need to treat pre-K as we do elementary education. it's just as important. That requires paying teachers a realistic wage based on their education levels.

Study after study has shown that quality pre-K is a huge determinant in later academic success. For higher income kids, the difference isn't so significant, for lower income kids, the difference is huge. While the reasons for this distinction have not been fully elucidated, most likely it's because higher income kids have access to other resources - not just private pre-k, but programs which cost to supplement their at home environment AND more educated parents who have the ability to teach their kids.

If we have any hope of changing the future, we need to start with the future - the kids. it's a small tax on things I have the money to buy, and well worth it.


I would gladly fund it for all kids in the City of San Antonio, but that requires a higher tax which is a hard pill to swallow for most.

For someone who is so intelligent you really seem to miss the program does nothing more than the current programs before Pre-K 4SA did.

FYI not only are teacher salaries OKAY they also have an AMAZING retirement package.

(Not you Chaka) As for white privilege to the poster who originally mentioned it.. Really, have you seen a mirror or your previous post???

[pobre]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Wait, so you want to pay highly educated teachers even *less* than they are currently paid which is already pathetically low? Really?

Or, we can build, then slowly expand the program as it shows progress. Unless of course everyone wants a significant tax hike to pay for all kids to go to pre-K.

I'm not referring to the teachers. I'm referring to the inevitable layers of administrators. But their teachers are paid about 10K more than our average starting salary. (Btw, I'm a teacher)

I have no problem with Pre K for ALL. I have a problem with spending so much to provide for so few.

[huckster]

Great post! Ugh..Where is the empirical evidence? Site some sources for your research on poverty, comparatively speaking, here in San Antonio. This might make your presentation more convincing. It would seem less like- just wild claims from the peanut gallery to oppose. Perhaps you have encountered a data breach? Post your findings. They could be flawed.
Yes poverty would be much worse without programs to help our underpriveleged and poverty stricken little ones.

Originally Posted by geargrinder70

Chaka I seem to remember reading the same things you listed above about the goals of the Head Start program. Now here we are 50 years after Head Start began and what has it accomplished? I see no mass improvements. Wasn't that program supposed to help break the cycle of poverty in our nation? We still have the exact same problems now as we did back in 1964. Why do you think pre k will be any different?

[huckster]

Lots of fact wielding in these entries here .

Originally Posted by Chaka

I agree. I'd love to see free pre-K for ALL San Antonio 4 yr olds, as is common in much of the developed world. Unfortunately, that requires even higher taxes to cover all kids, taxes most are not willing to pay. Since schools are dependent upon property taxes (not pre-K-4-SA, that's separate), only property owners pay to fund schools, which means the middle class pays for all.

[Chaka]

Rather than many replies to individual posts,I'll attempt to sum up responses in one.

re: - what does Pre-K-4-SA do that Head Start didn't already?

The most significant thing is that it makes pre-K available to a segment of the population that would have fallen through the cracks: the middle class/lower middle class earners, the working poor. As stated previously, to be eligible for Head Start you must earn no more than the federal poverty level, for a family of 4 that is $23,850.

For pre-K-4-SA, the limit is $44,123, which is the level of eligibility for a lunch program, which in some schools reaches more than 90% of their population. The difference is significant. Many families fall into that bracket - they work minimum wage jobs, or they work professional jobs....(when I worked for the city more than half of my staff made less than that, including me - with two advanced degrees). This is the population who can usually make ends meet - pay rent, usually feed their families, though the lunch program helps, but could never afford private preschool.

In addition to targeting this segment of the population, the intent was to provide a higher standard of pre-K education. It's not *just* childcare, it's education formed on evidence-based methods. Of course *all* pre-K, including Head Start, should provide high quality education, but the Head Start program is not there yet. This is why they initially aimed at hiring teachers with a higher education level and more experience - and paid them the salary commensurate with that level. Ideally, pre-K-4-SA's program would serve as a model for Head Start, pulling it up to a higher level. And while pre-K-4-SA has been championed as the "first" program of its kind, it's really based on a very standard European model of pre-school education that's been used extensively.

Also note that it includes children of active duty service members or children of service members killed. I don't believe Head Start includes these children (but I could be wrong on that, I didn't see reference to this group when I looked it up).

re: it's availability for all

In an ideal world, it would be like K-12 education, available to all regardless of income level. Until we're willing, as a society, to pay taxes to fund school for all 3-4 yr olds in Bexar County, that's not possible. If you believe it should be available to all, then contact your councilperson and tell them you want to increase taxes to cover this. For now, it's targeting a segment of the population who will gain the most from it - those kids who would otherwise struggle in K,1,2 to catch up to their peers who had attended pre-K or had other educational opportunities provided by their educated parents, since there are limited funds.

re: value of pre-K

There are studies which have proven the importance of pre-K, and that value increases as the income level of the families decrease. Since some have stated they refuse to believe the science, I won't bother with citing all the studies because it's a waste of time. That doesn't change the data which support pre-K.

re: teacher salaries

For someone with a master's degree and extensive experience, in most fields that would demand a higher salary. The salaries of pre-K-4-SA are aimed only at achieving that level of equality in pay.
We can agree to disagree and what is a "good" salary.

A final note:
Your taxes are also going to fund privately owned charter schools in San Antonio. While on paper these are "open to all," in practice, for many of them, they are only available to those who can afford the logistics. If you don't have a car, parents work two jobs, fall into the lower income bracket which allows for the lunch program, you're out of luck. No way could you attend these schools even if accepted. If you don't have the resources for extra help (e.g. tutoring, or come from a family with educated parents who can help you succeed), you won't last in these schools. So, your taxes are paying to subsidize what is effectively private education for those who can readily afford private school. But no one seems to mind that. Instead, the state is using your tax dollars to bring in even more private corporations to open up charter schools available only to a limited population.