Setting aside the strawman argument there, can you tell me how many of these "bad parents" there are? You seem awfully convinced they exist.
I will quit being a , and simply stick to asking tough questions that I know I will not get answered, but I think any reasonable, conscientious person should be concerned about to judge the issue.
I think that will make the irrationality of Cosmic Cowboy's stated position on the issue a lot clearer.
All I have to do to make my case is ask good critical thinking questions, and simply wait for your utter inability to answer them, Cowboy.
According to Castro there are about 5000 kids that currently qualify and don't take advantage of the program. His number, not mine.
That doesn't really answer my question to any reasonable degree. I don't accept his off the cuff data either, as previously stated. I care more about the truth than being right or wrong.
I want parameters, and the basis for need first. This seems to me like it is important to get that kind of information.
If you have any link to a source article, that would be a start.
suck itThere are approximately 5,700 four-year-old children living in San Antonio who are eligible for State funded Pre-K but currently are not enrolled in a full day Pre-K program. An estimated 2,300 eligible four-year-old children currently are not enrolled in any Pre-K program while 3,400 are enrolled in half-day programs in the City of San Antonio.
I'm relatively certain the local ISD's already have this data.
Well, a bit of digging found some interesting fact sheets from both sides. Looks like a lot to wade through that will have to wait until this evening, when I have the time.
one brief bit that provides a good starting point, as it details the proposal:
http://www.sanantonio.gov/portals/0/...ct%20Sheet.pdf
You will find that the issue is not qualification...the city proposal will use exactly the same standards for free pre-k admission that is currently being used by the school districts. The issue is funding full day programs instead of half day programs.
You will also find that exactly as I stated there are thousands of kids (Castro says 2300) who currently qualify for free pre-k yet their parents haven't enrolled them.
You want to make excuses for the parents.
I say it is the parents responsibility to do the right thing for their children.
I also say that creating a new program that serves the same kids using the same entry requirements won't make those parents responsible parents.
Interesting link. They've completely neglected to build a case as to why this should be done....
These points seems counter-productive:
"Ten percent of enrollment at the Education Excellence Centers will be made available to children who do not fall within the State eligibility criteria. These families will pay varying levels of tuition based upon their income.
Enrollment for the Education Excellence Centers will be chosen through objective and unbiased lottery systems administered by participating school districts."
I'd rather they use this approach exclusively:
"In the 2016-2017 school year, Pre-K 4 SA will offer compe ive grants to school districts, charter, private/parochial schools, and community providers to offer full day and/or enhanced Pre-K services for approximately 1,700 four-year-old children annually."
It's a of alot more effective than creating 4 "Educational Excellence Centers" and expecting the traffic to come to them.
Again, why reinvent the wheel? Add funding to local schools via Pre-K SA, if you are absolutely sure that it's not being offered, which by dint of their data, doesn't seem to be the case.
Exactly
And if both side agree that pre-k4 is critically important then make it mandatory (just like enrolling your child in 1st grade) and fund it at the state level.
Again, i am not against pre-k4.
I'm against the city of San Antonio doing it.
This is pure politics to enhance Castro's educational creds for when he leaves San Antonio and pursues higher office.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/portals/0/...ct%20Sheet.pdfTen percent of enrollment at the Education Excellence Centers will be made available to children who do not fall within the State eligibility criteria. These families will pay varying levels of tuition based upon their income.
Enrollment for the Education Excellence Centers will be chosen through ... lottery systems administered by participating school districts
But TX is broke!
RickyBobby cut $5B+ from education.
Quiet. The grownups are talking.
RG you SUCK at reading comprehension.
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
the city proposal will use exactly the same standards for free pre-k admission that is currently being used by the school districts.
I think RG is just blinded by his desperate desire to argue with me. Some serious butthurt going on there.
Nope.
I reject your definition of "excuse", and simply want information, before reaching any kind of conclusion.
If there are 2200 children that are eligible but not enrolled, what can you show me about the reasons for that? Anything?
By the same token, can you show me how the city addresses these reasons (which remained undefined) with their new plan?Nope.
I reject your definition of "excuse", and simply want information, before reaching any kind of conclusion.
If there are 2200 children that are eligible but not enrolled, what can you show me about the reasons for that? Anything?
Additionally, how are the schools failing to address these reasons?
Easy.Nope.
I reject your definition of "excuse", and simply want information, before reaching any kind of conclusion.
If there are 2200 children that are eligible but not enrolled, what can you show me about the reasons for that? Anything?
At least 2200 parents neglected to enroll their kids in a free pre-k program that was available to them.
I thought even a dumb like you could figure that one out.
The data set of unreached students is not a reason unto itself for action.
Wrong again.
I care far more about getting to enough information to make a decent decision. Please stop making unproven or incorrect assumptions about my motivations.
To be clear:
I do not care about proving you right or wrong. I have actually agreed with you mildly on a couple of points, but have been too busy being a to emphasize or expand on that.
I noted that there is actually a slight expansion of the people that the programs were to be offered, beyond the bare minimium.
A part you neglected to mention, for whatever reason.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
