Mayor Julián Castro’s initiative using one-eighth cent of the sales tax to fund Pre-K-4 SA is an investment in the children of San Antonio and the future of San Antonio.
We have already had testimonials from CEOs of large companies, such as Toyota, about the importance of a strong educational foundation to enable qualified future workers to fill skilled jobs providing good incomes in our city. We are all aware of the numerous peer-reviewed research reports about the value of quality early education programs which enable students to succeed in primary school, earn high school diplomas, and pursue higher education.
Economists have also demonstrated positive economic returns on investments in early education. An August op-ed piece in The New York Times by Charles M. Blow titled “Starving the Future” argued that only half of U.S. children receive early education, and we have no national strategy to increase enrollment. Blow also provided data from a report prepared by the Center for American Progress entitled, “The Race That Really Matters: Comparing U.S., Chinese and Indian Investments in the Next Generation Workforce.” The report found that “by 2030 China will have 200 million college graduates—more than the entire U.S. workforce. “ The report showed that by 2020 China will enroll 40 million children in pre-school, a 50 percent increase from today. According to those figures, China will have provided 70 percent of the children in China with three years of preschool. Blow concluded by arguing, “we don’t have any time—or students—to waste.”
That is exactly what Mayor Castro is arguing. Despite reductions in spending at the state level for education, San Antonio leaders are determined to invest in our children.
I hope the people of San Antonio will turn out and vote Tuesday, and when they do, agree that we do not have time or children to waste. The Pre-K 4 SA initiative is well planned and will cost very little per family to invest in our children. Participation in a quality preschool program may change the trajectory of a deserving child’s life, and having excellent early childhood demonstration centers will provide models for others and raise the quality of programs throughout the city.
Dr. Harriett Romo is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Mexico Center and the Bank of America Child & Adolescent Policy Research Institute (CAPRI) at the University of Texas San Antonio. You can reach her at harriett.romo@utsa.edu.
I have to agree with Mr. Castro that this is something that puts San Antonio on the map for being forward thinking rather than the reverse. Bravo. For a country that can’t pay it’s teachers but can afford the biggest military in the world, it’s about time somebody made a case for our next generation. My dad used to say, “The young people are taking over the world.” and he was right. How they take it over is our responsibility, and education during the formative years matters much more than later on. This is money well spent if spent well, but I can make that gamble.
Dr. Romo’s statement – “The Pre-K 4 SA initiative is well planned and will cost very little per family to invest in our children. Participation in a quality preschool program may change the trajectory of a deserving child’s life,…” – says that she has not read the details of the mayor’s plan. Dr. Romo merely has accepted the mayor’s talking point that the program will change the trajectory of education at face value.
This program has identified a target population of 2300 children who are not enrolled in one of the free PreK programs that all school districts are required by state law to offer. These are not real children, just statistical data from demographers. The mayor has no idea if these 4 year old children are being provided PreK training by their families or through some other means. So to start with we have a false crisis. Then if you look at the probability of one of these target children actually getting selected for one of the city mega centers, you understand this initiative is not really about the children. Do you believe that parents who have not enrolled their child in one of the existing free PreK programs at their neighborhood school are going to make the effort to enroll them in the lottery that will decide who gets to go to the city mega centers? Even if every parent of the 2300 children did enroll their child in the lottery, the probability is less than 1 in 10 the child will be selected.
So while PreK education is important and may change the trajectory of a child’s life, this initiative will not accomplish that goal for any significant number of the target population. This plan is more about spending $350million over 8 years to build an “Education Alamo Dome” than solving the problems that are endemic in our society and in too many of our school districts in San Antonio.
As an Early Childhood Educator of 40 years, I have seen in research and in practice how critical the child’s early years are to lifelong learning and success. I taught four-year-olds in Edgewood, and saw benefits of quality preschool. However, the research does not show the long lasting benefits that are being touted. What research does demonstrate is that having married parents has a significant and enduring impact on student achievement and graduation from high school, even greater than the level either of the parents’ income or education. Why not focus our investment on strengthening marriage and family? This focus would break the generational cycle of poverty. By the way, no child in San Antonio whose parents are eligible and desire pre-K has been denied enrollment in our school district’s existing programs. The City’s proposal is to bus young children 30-40 minutes from their neighborhoods and duplicate in city-run schools what is being already provided.
“Why not focus our investment on strengthening marriage and family?” Because not everyone wants to be married or is not allowed to marry (gays, lesbians). This initiative is a great start. Besides, plenty of kids from single family homes have succeeded because of education. This is the right focus.
After Year One of operations, and with credible data, who is ultimately responsible for results — good, bad, or negligible — hired staff, an unelected Board of Directors, or the Mayor?
This is not an issue as to whether 4-year olds need an academic head start, it’s a question of wise use of limited resources, in an environment were free pre-k is already being offered.
Has a compelling case been made? Should the City become a competitor to existing operations? Will a four-year old today be followed academically to age 24 to see how they fared two decades later?