Reply With Quote
That really isn't an answer to my question.
I didn't ask what the goal of the program is from the administrator.
I don't need to come up with excuses.
You need to come up with evidence, it is your theory. Quit trying to wiggle out of it, take some personal responsibility.
There is NO ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE for not providing evidence to support your moral rot.
NONE.
The only excuse you offered was judgmental claptrap and ty anecdotes.
Having ty anecedotes is not an excuse for not having a reasonable standard of evidence.
Do you have anything beyond some personal anecdote that might actually help?
Can you show me supply and demand? Can you provide some survey as to utilization whys and wherefores? ANYTHING?
That really isn't an answer to my question.
I didn't ask what the goal of the program is from the administrator.
:l mao
God you are a tool.
This was your argument that poor people were getting ed out of pre-K
I totally DESTROYED your ing argument with FACTS that in fact ALL poor kids are currently eligible for pre-k and yes...it is my opinion that if a parent is not taking advantage of the free pre-k program they are lazy s and ty parents.
There are broken human beings who will always be mired in poverty. I fully agree.
I just can't tell who is just ed up and who is savable, and where the dividing line is.
I also don't think that punishign their children somehow by denying them social services is good for society.
Don't force me to make public policy based on your desire to feel superior to the broken people.
I prefer facts over emotions.
God you are a tool.
This was your argument that poor people were getting ed out of pre-K
I totally DESTROYED your ing argument with FACTS that in fact ALL poor kids are currently eligible for pre-k and yes...it is my opinion that if a parent is not taking advantage of the free pre-k program they are lazy s and ty parents.
Meh. You didn't. You're just getting worked up and pissy, and are incapable of seeing how flimsy what you have put forth is.
Sorry. You can't point to a moehill, claim it is a mountain and expect me to buy it.
You are so ing stupid. These kids ALREADY GET FREE PRE-K!
I'm not advocating punishing poor kids.
I cut and pasted the ing school districts policy stating that they would make sure that every kid that applied and qualified for pre-k had a place in the class.
That's a fact, dumbass.
"All poor kids are eligible" does not show that there are X number of slots and Y number of kids who want in.
Statements that the goal is to get all the kids into the program by the administrator doesn't provide reasonable evidence about supply and demand, it just shows what they want to do.
You do understand between "want to do" and "can do", right?
Sorry.
You suck at this evidence based arguing, and *I'm* the one that acts like WC?
When the program administrator states, publicly "“We will make classes for all students who are qualified, and there will be no waiting list. With Head Start and our pre-k programs, we will be able to offer multiple opportunities to serve families.” it seems implicit that supply and demand is not an issue.
Sigh.
Whatever. You don't get it, and I am not going to spoon feed it to you.
You win. Your stupid is too powerful. I give up Anecdote Man.
Vanquished............
You ing idiot.
“We will make classes for all students who are qualified, and there will be no waiting list,” said Linda Hamilton, Early Childhood Coordinator. “With Head Start and our pre-k programs, we will be able to offer multiple opportunities to serve families.”
Random: what TB said, there shouldn't be any reason that a child in NEISD who qualifies shouldn't have their kid in pre-k.
CC: You only posted for NEISD, that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the city enjoys such adequate prek classes.
Edit: Using public transportation may qualify in some cases. I had to wake up at 4:45 at my house at jones maltsberger and thousand oaks to get to my job at fredericksburg and prue by 8:00 when I had no car. If I had to make a side stop (say to drop a kid off) then I wouldn't have been able to make it. Also, you usually can't drop the kid off until something like 7:15 further hampering the efforts.
Edit further: you have to leave your kid somewhere during the day, so presumably you have figured out a way to transport them to that place, so you should be able to figure this out.
Conclusion: Transportation shouldn't be an issue in most cases, but can be valid.
IMO
So back to the original premise. Why the should the city of San Antonio set up a duplicating services to serve exactly the same target that the school districts are already serving?
Thank you.
I will readily grant that they certainly would want to, but I would prefer to have a bit better information than what they want to.
Implicit, mmmmmaybe. Proven to I would find to be even a mildly reasonable degree that there are enough slots?
No.
As I said, I don't have enough information to really make the call as to the need for another program.
To be perfectly fair, it goes the other way as well. Is there a need at all for another program?
Hows that for intellectual honesty.
That is the question that CC should be asking.
The answer is:
I don't know. I would realy like to know, though. It seems important enough to spend time learning about.
Again, thank you.
I think we are way talking past each other. I am certainly not helping by being a judgmental about CC being a judgmental .
I am not trying to be antagonistic, and perhaps I missed it, but I clicked on the very first link (SAISD) and it gave no such guarantee of space.
I just read it again and didn't see it.
It's a profit center for the schools. They are reimbursed by the state. They make room.
The real issue is that some are half day and some are full day. The state pays for half day for all and full day for some.
I still say this should be worked out between the state and the school districts and the city has no business getting into the education business serving the exact same target group.
Everybody should embrace their judgmental ism on occasion.
I have already stated that I agree with your position, but obviously those who qualify are not getting served as the whole point of this program is to "serve those who qualify but are for one reason or another not being served."
IMHO it's the old adage that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
The programs are in place.
They are available free to all that qualify.
Some parents aren't taking advantage of the free programs that already exist. You obviously can't expect a 4 year old to enroll themselves.
How does creating a NEW free program that does exactly the same thing as the existing free programs suddenly make these non-participating parents participate?
What are they gonna do? Go out and arrest these 4 year olds that belong to these ty parents and put them in Castros new pre-k?
This is antecdotal just so you know, but I went to school with a girl whose daughter qualified based on income, but she got waitlisted (I do not know which district, sorry). She leans right like michael jackson dances in smooth criminal.
She is blaming it all on those "damn spanish speaking illegals who are taking up space."
edit: the MJ thing sounded better in my head, suffice to say she is far right which is neither here nor there, I just figured my antecdote needed background story.
dude just wants tax raised, pre-k just a pretext imho
I believe the new program will be for students who do not qualify for the current program offered by the schools.
Interesting.
I think there is a lot more to know about this, and that kneejerk reactionary bull is a poor way to vote.
Here are what I see as information sufficient to gauge the issue:
Number of slots available, per district.
Number of children in need. This requires the following information:
--household income statistics for people with children to help define an actual need and
--a comparison of that need with the slots made
--information on waiting lists, if any, as well as information on who is turned down as "ineligible"
--a bit of information on childhood development and the effects of pre-k education on that, with some decent cause/effect data as opposed to correlation data
I'm sure I will think of more.
What about the children that don't qualify? Do you know if the ones that don't qualify actually need it, but are just on the edge of qualifying, with parents that can't afford it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
