We’ve had enough excuses
Today, I was listening to some of the reasons that people are in opposition to the Pre-K 4 SA initiative. One given was that not enough details have been provided. Actually, quite a bit has been provided through the city’s website (remember, it is a city initiative). Most likely, there will never be enough detail so this is just an excuse than a reason. Regarding the target population itself, some have focused on the parents. When you consider the program, it has a parenting component above and beyond what is offered in the school districts so, once again, another excuse, even when presented a solution. In other words, all that’s afforded by the opposition are excuses but no real reasons. When looking at San Antonio’s future, we’ve had enough excuses. It’s time for solutions and Pre-K 4 SA is a solution.
But first, let’s look at what’s at stake here. The Pre-K program being promoted by the city, community, and businesses of San Antonio is designed to target a specific population of children. These children are from families that are at or below 185% of the poverty level (as defined by the federal government), live in a household where English is a second language, be a dependent of either an active duty, injured, or deceased member of the U.S. Armed Forces, be homeless, or be currently in or have been in fostered care. The target audience are children that aren’t afforded the same lifestyle many of us were brought up in.
According to the program there are estimated to be eventually 3,700 children per year to be served by this high quality pre-K program in four model centers around the city. Not only will the model centers serve the children, they will also serve as training centers for parenting skills, a requirement for enrollment in the program, and become a training center for pre-K teachers from the school districts, private schools, and charter schools. In other words, the purpose of the centers is to not only teach the children but many others involved in the process.
So why should the city be involved in educating children? After all, isn’t that the job of our school districts? I would tend to agree if it weren’t for the fact that each year our state legislature continues to cut funding from education to balance the state budget, usually in deficit due to a structural tax problem. Just this past biennium Texas schools were underfunded by over $200 million for full day pre-K programs.
Realizing that the best way to change the trajectory of a child’s educational life is to start as early as possible, San Antonio has decided to step into the mix and deal with the problem locally while the state continues to wrangle with future budget shortfalls. In other words, San Antonio is tired of excuses from our state legislature in terms of funding education and is providing a solution for a population that is typically underserved year in and year out.
So what’s the difference between what will be offered in the model centers and pre-K programs in our school districts. For starters, the programs will be full day and not half day, creating an educational lifestyle for these young children. Numerous studies have proven the effectiveness of a full day program for pre-K. One study conducted by the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents found that “Disadvantaged students in full day kindergarten were also found to experience greater academic benefits than students in half day programs, although the magnitude of these greater benefits is again variable.”
When considering the cost of the program, it factors to around $7.81 per year per household in San Antonio. Granted, that number is difficult to pin down but opposition counters of $50-60 are even harder to quantify, especially considering the nature of San Antonio being a destination city for both tourists and Mexican nationals who shop in the city. Sales tax revenues continue to climb in the city, indicating a broader spread of tax burden across the population. It is reasonable to assume that the tax burden per household to be no more than $10 per year.
Counter that with the societal cost benefits realized by changing the educational trajectory of the child and family. By enrolling children and their families in these programs it is expected the educational life to take a much better track than without the program. Changing the lifestyle trajectory of a child from an economically disadvantaged life to one where the young adult is not only employable but contributes to society can have dramatic effects on the community. Just by not having to provide restitution services such as detention for crimes can help serve the community.
Couple that with the need to continue to grow San Antonio’s workforce into one that is more educated and employable is another good reason. Many will cite the fact that these benefits cannot be realized for more than a decade. However, these views are extremely shortsighted and could leave our city’s future in jeopardy. When dealing with long term solutions one has to start early and create a path to success. Education is a part of that foundation and if the state will not help San Antonio meet the challenge, the local community must step in.
So I advocate and support the Pre-K 4 SA initiative and encourage everyone to vote for it. It’s our city’s future that is at stake and the data is compelling. It’s time to quit making excuses and for San Antonio to take hold of its destiny. Waiting for others to solve our problem is no longer an option.
Even though it has not been that long ago that I had a 4 year old, I admit I do not understand the current baseline system; e.g. who is entitled to what. The proponents talk about filling a gap, but it is not clear to me what the definition of the gap is. That being said, here are my observations on the issue and, separate from my observations, my reason for voting no.
1. I agree the proposed sales tax increase will generate about $31M. What we don’t know is how much of that will be paid by visitors and suburbanites, and how much will be paid by San Antonians. That unknown makes a big difference in figuring out the real cost to us.
2. The proponents claim that the median SA household will only pay $6.71 more. To parse this a little, that means 50% of the households will pay $6.71 or less. If we assume there are some households that have 0 income and a straightline distribution between the 0 and 50th percentile, then average households in the bottom ½ will pay $3.36. $3.36 x ½ the households in SA will generate about $775,000 of the $31M. This leaves $30.5M to be paid by the top ½ of households and visitors. If we assume 0 visitors, then the top ½ of SA household will pay an average of $129. (If we use your assumption of $10/household, that only generates $4.6M; leaving $21M to be paid by visitors and suburbanites.)
3. Another way of looking at it: forget about the median and just look at the average. $31M divided by 461,000 households is about $68/household. (again, this does not account for any of the $31M paid for by visitors).
4. And a third way to look at the number: $6.71 in 1/8% sales tax equates to taxable purchases of $5,368 for that median family. Or, that is only 12.4% of their $43k median income. (source of all the numbers I used in my calculations: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4865000.html)
5. As for my household’s specific case, it looks like it would cost us about $135 based on what we deducted for sales tax in 2011.
6. One of theories I heard for why there are underserved kids is that with only ½ day of pre-K the parents can not afford to take off from work to pick them up and take them home or provide other day care for the rest of the day. I don’t see how this plan really fixes that problem. In my own elementary-age son’s case, school starts at 7:50 and lets out at 2:45. No way I could drop him off and pick him up and work an 8 hour day. Even with him riding the bus, he is out the door at 6:50 and home at 3:15. That provides an 8 hour day only if there is minimal commute and no lunch. Consequently we pay for an afterschool program. Given that there will only be 4 locations in town for this initiative and no transportation plans, I don’t see how it will be more attractive to parents than what is already available.
7. The initiative would appear to impact the school districts by taking the state funding that comes with the students they already serve who might transfer to the new city school, but with no commensurate decrease in infrastructure costs. This will have to be made up by either higher school taxes or cutting existing services and programs.
8. I’ve seen no discussion about the alternative of raising this money and then giving it to the school districts to fill the gap. This would address concerns about creating a new and separate infrastructure, and make pre-k available in the local neighborhoods instead of the four supercenters. It also allows the school districts to retain the state funding for these students (see point above), and would actually increase it if it attracts new students.
But those are just observations. My reason for voting no was the mayor’s own admission on the Jack Ricardi show a month or so ago that he would not have recommended this initiative if the sales tax was not available. In other words, it is his highest priority, but not so high that he is willing to try to carve $31M out of the $948M city general fund, and not so high that he’s willing to ask for more property tax to do it. Consequently it only comes across as a “lets tax it because we can” proposal. That is not compelling enough for me.
People think it’s the money and that’s not the truth. It’s the idea only the low income children and children of illegals living in our city qualify because that’s the way it has been for decades. You earn a low income and you are treated like luxury, and we pay for it. You don’t learn English because your parents don’t know it themselves, so we have to have special classes for these students. May I go on. Our children have always been third in line and are accepted, but only, if we pay a certain fee. $8.50 a year is what it would cost us, but like I mentioned it’s not the money. So, I voted NO to this dumb idea by our Mayor and he actually doesn’t care, if it passes or not because his mind is set in running for Congress, and leave us holding the bag.