A Sunday article in the San Antonio Express-News reported that support for the Pre-K 4 SA program was tied to income. The newspaper’s analysis of the Nov. 6 vote showed that voters from low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income areas in San Antonio were more likely to support the Pre-K 4 SA initiative than were those from higher income areas. Areas dominated by minorities tended to favor Pre-K 4 SA far more than areas dominated by Anglo voters.
A few weeks before the election I was telling people the same thing — in so many words. The people who could least afford the tax were supportive of the initiative, while those who could most afford the tax opposed the initiative. I know people offered many reasons and excuses for not supporting Pre-K 4 SA, but why did those who could least afford it support the initiative, and those who could easily afford it not support it?
There are many reasons that might explain this phenomenon of support or non-support. I believe those who could easily afford the 1/8 cent of sales tax did not see a need for the program. Their children benefit because their families have the resources to provide for early education opportunities, and their children would not qualify for the program.
Those families who had lesser resources saw a need and a program that would help their children. Remember the program is about helping children who are economically disadvantaged, which means children who qualify for free or reduced school lunch based on family income. These families see education as a path out of poverty. If n expansion of the current Pre-K program will help their children be better prepared to start school then they support it.
Besides the anti-tax sentiment, I believe there was the anti-government sentiment that led many people to vote no. Certainly the ones who could easily afford the tax did not want to see city government expand, especially into an area traditionally reserved for our schools. Those who have resources do not need or want more government services. There are many families, however, who need government support and assistance to better prepare their children for school. This is a program they appreciate and will support. This is not a “government hand-out,” as some people portrayed it, but a program that supports stronger early childhood programs in our city and in our schools.
It is my belief that we all share a responsibility to help those less fortunate than ourselves. I had a mother and father who preached this, but I also saw them practice this many times. From their experience in the Great Depression and World War II they understood that there were people and families who, because of their circumstances, needed the help of those who could afford it. This help came from individuals, churches, social organizations, and government. Sacrificing for the good of others was something their generation understood. I never once heard them complain about the government spending money to help those who were in need. It seems the divide in this country is more and more between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” and this especially concerns me when it comes to helping our children.
In the days of the Hebrew prophets there were those in Israel who lived lives of luxury at the expense of the poor. They had an air of indifference to those who did not have even the basic necessities. Having just taught the Book of Amos in my Sunday School class, I can say that the prophet Amos certainly called out those who were more wealthy for their irresponsibility in not helping the poor. I am appreciative of the fact that there were many of the more fortunate in our community who supported Pre-K 4 SA. And, certainly in this election the less fortunate voted in such a way to help our children have a better future. This is not socialism, it is social responsibility.
Dr. John M. Folks, the 2011 Texas Superintendent of the Year, has been an educator for more than 40 years and is one of the most vocal and passionate advocates for public education in the state of Texas. A native of Oklahoma who earned his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees from the University of Oklahoma, Dr. Folks began his career as a math teacher in Port Arthur, Texas. He currently is a senior lecturer for the University of Texas at San Antonio’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. You can read more of Dr. Folks’ writing on education on his “Common Sense About Public Education” blog.
Are you seriously quoting the Bible to condemn the rich for voting against PreK for SA? Could it possibly be that they voted against it because it was a bad idea? Or could it be that maybe the idea was still too flawed and wasn’t thought out enough? Just because an idea has good intent doesn’t mean it has good content.
This is a polarizing article that unfairly pits the rich against the poor based upon pure speculation based on voting trends. Have you ever thought that the higher income population might be better informed on the issues when they voted since they have better access to the internet? Based on this greater amount of information, they may have made a better choice. The less affluent areas statistically have less access to internet and may have relied more heavily on the city’s aggressive campaigning and our popular mayor’s approval as the basis for their vote.
Don’t try to tell us that the reason this proposition was voted against was because of greed and the lack responsibility for the wealthy to take care of the poor. This proposition was voted against due to its merits. It had flaws that were highlighted and people who were informed of these flaws voted against it. You may be right that some voted against it because they see government as inefficient and I can’t blame them because they are correct.
Disclaimer – I voted for the PreK 4 SA proposition.
I wholeheartedly believe in investing in education but when I first studied the Pre-K initiative I had some concerns about implementation and potential inefficiencies. While I leaned toward supporting it despite some of my doubts about the details, I ultimately decided that my final determination would be based on whether the person I admired the most as an expert in education was behind it. As soon as I saw your endorsement, I knew which way to vote. Thank you Dr. Folks for your leadership and advocacy. As long as you are speaking out on behalf our our children and sharing your passion and wisdom with future generations of school leaders, I know our education system will continue to succeed.
Hi Dr. Folks,
I appreciate your comments, thanks for your insight. I was a slow learner when I was 4 and 5 years-old, and I had to “repeat” pre-K. But by the time I hit kindergarten, I was raring to go. As someone who worked for a pre-K program while in college and has been committed to K-12 public education ever since, I have witnessed in my work and in my professional life the ripples of confidence, positive socialization and cumulative learning that began when I was very young.
To quote an Old Testament proverb: ““Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it”.
Which leads me to my final point. I don’t think it is a coincidence that both you and I reference the role of faith in raising consciousness about the most vulnerable in our community. There were plenty of practical, self-interested reasons for more secure individuals in our community to vote for pre-K. But, and I’m just speaking for myself here, I appealed to my opposing friends and colleagues in the context of faith because I know they are thoughtful people shaped by their religious beliefs.
As Bob Rivard might say, faith/religion is a “major narrative” for San Antonio. We gotta keep trying to find common ground, even when it is just hope in the unseen.
Here’s my blog on the topic, fyi: http://fe.sidebyside.co/2012/11/04/train-a-child-why-i-support-pre-k-education-in-sa.aspx
Again, thanks for your leadership, then and now.
We’ve gone from having “The Greatest Generation” to having the “I Got Mine” generation(s).
Thanks for sharing this, I look forward to reading Mr Folks’ blog!