Public Townhall regarding pre-K proposal to be broadcast on sunday, Sept 23, 8:00 PM (San Antonio: low income, sales)

[wehotex]

Texas Public Radio - Town Hall: Pre-K 4 SA

I missed listening to this on Tues, Sept 18. It will be re-broadcast on Sunday.

[campingsis]

I'm totally against this proposal. Pre-K is just a baby sitting service paid for by the taxpayers. Four year olds should be learning how to get along with others, pre-reading skills, and very basic math at home. There already is a service for low-income families who need child care...CCA. Studies have already shown how children who attend a head-start program are no better off by the time they are in third grade. The attention and encouragement to learn must start with Mom and Dad and MUST continue to be a priority in the home.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by campingsis

I'm totally against this proposal. Pre-K is just a baby sitting service paid for by the taxpayers. Four year olds should be learning how to get along with others, pre-reading skills, and very basic math at home. There already is a service for low-income families who need child care...CCA. Studies have already shown how children who attend a head-start program are no better off by the time they are in third grade. The attention and encouragement to learn must start with Mom and Dad and MUST continue to be a priority in the home.

I'm also against it, but am curious to hear how others feel about it. This should be interesting.

[pr57001]

I think we all realize we need to increase the educational attainment in San Antonio, among many other cities. I am not knowledgable enough to suggest whether pre-k helps do that or not; personally, I would rather see a focus on vocational training, as I think the prevailing "everyone most go to college" culture is misguided.

More importantly, however, is that we cannot have every layer of government involved in every area of our lives. We already have the federal government, state governments and local school districts running education. I don't believe there is a place for another arm of government to build another expensive apparatus. We live in a world where the TSA now does security for political campaign events. The city should get better at what only the city can do.

The prevailing wisdom that because it is "education" or "the children" we are obligated to throw an unlimited amount of money at the education problem is unreasonable, no matter how unpopular that concept may be. We can't just buy our way out of poor parenting and generations old cultural problems.

[Merovee]

One of the Pre-K 4 SA centers will be at Brooks Citybase, the other in the Medical Center area.

(:

[Bo]

Originally Posted by Merovee

One of the Pre-K 4 SA centers will be at Brooks Citybase, the other in the Medical Center area.

Locating them 5+ miles from NEISD territory should pretty much guarantee that the NEISD school board will opt not to participate. They were reluctant if the center had been at 410 and San Pedro, which is the population center of the city. Those locations are too far for NEISD to bus 3 and 4 year kids.

I'll just go ahead and say now that I wish that the sales tax revenue collected for this in NEISD territory could go to NEISD Pre-K programs instead, if it's not going to benefit NEISD children.

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by Bo

Locating them 5+ miles from NEISD territory should pretty much guarantee that the NEISD school board will opt not to participate. They were reluctant if the center had been at 410 and San Pedro, which is the population center of the city. Those locations are too far for NEISD to bus 3 and 4 year kids.

I'll just go ahead and say now that I wish that the sales tax revenue collected for this in NEISD territory could go to NEISD Pre-K programs instead, if it's not going to benefit NEISD children.

NEISD is rather insular in these matters so will naturally maintain their distance and skepticism to large degrees. While we could use their help as a partner in progress it is no surprise if they continue to choose to ignore the rest of the city.

This could easily benefit NEISD children but their administrators seem opposed. You guys could always schedule in another school bond proposition if you are really interested in raising more funds?

The city has traditionally and disproportionately focused on the North side so it is understandable that some within NEISD boundaries would want that to continue perpetually even to the detriment of the rest of the city. Now that all sides of town are getting attention in different ways it seems that only now some want to cry foul while others praise the progress.

[Cramowheat]

It's not "progress" to all of us...didn't we just debate this on another thread. I think the whole idea is a ridiculous scam to make the mayor look good. It's going to free up the entire week (must be nice) for people who don't care to parent. We already pay outrageous property taxes (one reason we are leaving here). I've yet to see one thing about making the parents volunteer, find jobs, or be accountable in any way. So, get mad if you want, but this town has a serious parenting problem.

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by Cramowheat

It's not "progress" to all of us...didn't we just debate this on another thread. I think the whole idea is a ridiculous scam to make the mayor look good. It's going to free up the entire week (must be nice) for people who don't care to parent. We already pay outrageous property taxes (one reason we are leaving here). I've yet to see one thing about making the parents volunteer, find jobs, or be accountable in any way. So, get mad if you want, but this town has a serious parenting problem.

This lie needs to stop being spread.

If people want free babysitting m-f it is already available through the idea of charter schools.

There is this new charter school down here in the SE side where development is occurring that allows those as young as preschoolers to attend their classes and "programs" from 7 am - 6 pm. Guess who is paying for these vouchers? We are through taxes already. Guess who profits? Private companies who run schools based on the profit model. Guess who supported that as a way to attempt to destroy our public schools? Not progressives.

Some claim they don't want a nanny state but supported charter schools in town that gives everyone a nanny from 7 am to 6 pm if they want it...as long as you qualify due to low income.

I am totally against that but glad the Pre-K 4 SA will actually provide quality preschool and not a babysitting service on our dime. Some children are going to be raised in these charter schools. Public schools will be restored with or without your help or seal of approval and it will be due to of our local progressive mayor at the helm with the support of a city that is wanting this change.

[britishbird]

Originally Posted by campingsis

I'm totally against this proposal. Pre-K is just a baby sitting service paid for by the taxpayers. Four year olds should be learning how to get along with others, pre-reading skills, and very basic math at home. There already is a service for low-income families who need child care...CCA. Studies have already shown how children who attend a head-start program are no better off by the time they are in third grade. The attention and encouragement to learn must start with Mom and Dad and MUST continue to be a priority in the home.

Two things..

First, the CCA is not for all low-income families. My husband and I are very poor students and would be eligible for CCA if we both of our education plans matched the careers listed on the CCA website. My husband's does, mine does not. Because of this one reason, we are not eligible for CCA despite being low-income.

Second, I think it is unfair to assume that just because your young child is in daycare that you would somehow stop encouraging learning at home. My son is not in daycare because of the reasons listed above, but if he were I would still continue teaching him basic math, reading, and so forth. Putting a child into daycare does not mean you automatically stop caring about their education and shove all responsibility to the teachers.