Posted on 05/29/2006 12:40:11 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO – An initiative on the June 6 ballot that would give all 4-year-olds the right to attend preschool is casting California once again in the role of possible national trendsetter.
A drive to give all children the chance to begin school a year before kindergarten, with the aim of helping them become better readers and learners later on, has begun in Oklahoma, Georgia and Florida.
But Proposition 82 is much more ambitious and likely more controversial – not only because the program would be funded by $2 billion a year raised through increased taxes on upper-income Californians.
The measure, sponsored by film director Rob Reiner and others, would attempt to improve preschool quality through new curriculum standards and a requirement that all teachers eventually have a four-year college degree, with added study for a new early-learning credential.
A researcher who issued an analysis this month supporting Proposition 82 said it would create the “premier” preschool system in the nation.
“Proposition 82 represents a potential major change in California that over the years would affect millions of kids and we think might also have the potential to influence other states,” said W. Steven Barnett of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University.
Even some critics acknowledge that approval of Proposition 82 would jolt the national preschool movement.
“California would be the first big urban state in the country to put up billions of dollars to expand preschool,” said Bruce Fuller, a professor at the University of California Berkeley and director of the Policy Analysis for California Education. He opposes the measure.
“It is a decision that will reverberate across the country,” he said.
The initiative would provide what supporters say is a missing piece in the public school system. All children would have a chance to attend quality preschool, something they say only one-fifth of children are getting now.
Supporters say children would be better prepared to avoid remedial education and academic failure, particularly if they are from low-income homes. As a result, advocates say, these children would have a better chance of leading productive lives.
Opponents argue that the initiative is an expensive subsidy for parents able to pay for preschool, requires excessive training and higher salaries for teachers and prevents tax money from being used for more worthy programs.
They say the advantages produced by preschool for middle-income children tend to fade after a few years, which makes expansion of the current state preschool program for low-income children a wiser and much less costly alternative.
The high-stakes battle over Proposition 82 is being waged through expensive television ads, funded in part on the “yes” side by teacher unions whose membership would expand and on the “no” side by business groups concerned about the tax increase.
The initiative has split the business community. The big statewide groups are opposed: the California Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
But the initiative is supported by the Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland chambers of commerce and by two wealthy Silicon Valley businessmen active in education issues, Reed Hastings and John Doerr.
The initiative is opposed by two well-known liberal legislative leaders, Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland, and his predecessor in the top Senate post, former Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco.
Proposition 82 would give a new statewide preschool system something that the kindergarten-through-high school and higher education systems lack: a dedicated source of funding.
The preschool system would not have to compete for state general fund money like other programs. The money would come from a 1.7 percent increase on incomes of more than $400,000 for individuals, $800,000 for couples.
The tax would produce an estimated $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2007-08, growing to $2.6 billion three years later, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst.
For persons with income of more than $1 million, passage of Proposition 82 would create a total state tax rate of 12 percent, which would give California the highest state income tax rate in the nation.
Opponents argue that the rate is high enough to cause the wealthy to relocate or take business-related action to reduce their tax payment, which would result in less general fund revenue for other state programs.
Supporters call this a scare tactic. The Legislative Analyst thinks the higher rate could change the behavior of wealthy taxpayers, but, with caveats, estimates that the state's $100 billion general fund would lose about $100 million.
A provision in Proposition 82 that would allow the Legislature by a two-thirds vote to impose an emergency fee on preschool parents has been called a “parent tax” by opponents.
Supporters say the initiative, which requires building a reserve equal to one year of funding, only envisions an emergency fee in a catastrophe like an earthquake, which would not be a “tax” because preschool is voluntary.
The main author of Proposition 82, Reiner, resigned amid controversy earlier this year as chairman of the First 5 California Children and Families Commission. The commission was created by his previous initiative, Proposition 10 in 1998, which increased taxes on tobacco for “early childhood development programs,” mainly health care.
While signatures were being gathered to place Proposition 82 on the ballot, the Reiner-led commission is said to have improperly purchased pro-preschool television ads with $23 million from Proposition 10 tobacco tax money.
The Proposition 82 campaign said Reiner would not be available for comment on the initiative. A co-author of Proposition 82, Karen Hill-Scott, and campaign spokesman Nathan James addressed some of the critics' objections:
Universal preschool
Criticism: The well-off are given a subsidy in an attempt to get broader support for the initiative among voters.
Reply: A task force in 1998 and a revised K-12 master plan in 2002 recommended development of a preschool plan for all children. Programs limited to low-income students are rarely if ever fully funded. There is evidence that middle-income students benefit from preschool.
Private school impact
Criticism: Montessori, faith-based and nonprofit community programs that now provide much of preschool and child care fear that families will shift their children to government programs.
Reply: The initiative provides up to $2 billion over a decade for new facilities, but private-sector buildings will be needed to handle student volume. The county education offices distributing the money want diversified providers.
Cost per hour
Criticism: Up to $8,000 per pupil could be spent providing three hours of preschool per day.
Reply: The limited hours reflects available funding. If they choose, providers can include three hours of preschool in a longer day of child care that would be paid for by parents.
Little gain
Criticism: About 62 percent of 4-year-olds are in a program and the initiative would boost participation to 70 percent, the rate in other states with universal preschool.
Reply: Only about 20 percent of 4-year-olds are in quality preschool programs, and the rest are mainly in child care. The initiative would provide high-quality curriculum and teachers for all, and participation may go well over 70 percent.
Teacher pay
Criticism: Preschool teachers with salaries averaging $27,000 annually would be required to receive compensation similar to K-12 teachers, now averaging about $60,000 annually, and collective bargaining rights would be extended to private preschools.
Reply: The initiative requires all preschool teachers to have a four-year degree by 2014 and a new early-learning teaching credential by 2016. Better training produces better results, and the bargaining rights are the same as those for charter schools.
NO
Taxpayer financed daycare. Then again, it's never to early to show a kid how to put a condom on a cucumber.
LOL, but certainly is true.
IMO preschool is just a way for working parents to dump the kids off in the morning for someone to baby sit.
Of course, I am a little old and I am not a brilliant person, but I read and write reasonably well. I started school in the first grade we didnt have kindegarten, and if a kid didnt make the grade they stayed back. kids werent passed on up the line when they couldnt make the grade. I dont see where starting them 2 years sooner will make todays kids learn better, in fact it would seem just the opposite according to standardised tests they fail.
I just read an article that said this prop was going down the tubes.
That may be true. But it is also a way for the leftists like Reiner to get their hands on the minds of youth. With the leftists wanting to rewrite history, pay tribute to communists, rewrite textbooks to acknowledge contributions of gays, etc... this should be rejected on that premise alone. The taxes and other provisions should also be enough to Just Say NO!
I have no need or desire to raise someone else's kid(s).
There is a very long (but good) article just posted from the Weekly Standard.
It said polls show the initiative just above 50%.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640229/posts
Meatheadgate (Rob Reiner's sagging political fortunes)
They passed this in Florida already.
That's the one I just read. Good article--too bad for Meathead!
Preschool is an expensive proposition
"...Schwarzenegger, who opposes Proposition 82, has proposed spending $50 million next year as part of a phased-in program that would eventually commit $145 million annually to the preschool project.
"That might seem puny compared to the $2 billion-plus envisioned by Proposition 82, the measure placed on the ballot by Hollywood director Rob Reiner and his allies. But much of the money raised by the Reiner initiative would go to provide free preschool to children whose middle-class and wealthy families are paying for it now. The smaller amount proposed by the governor would go mostly to children from poor families who are not already enrolled..."
"In fact, the targeted approach favored by Schwarzenegger might expand preschool to just as many 4-year-olds from poor families as the more broad-based program in Proposition 82, while spending less than one-tenth as much..."
NO on 82 BumP!
Snort.
Can I get a, "HELL NO!," from the voters?
I remember reading that in his May revision to his budget. When he came out against Prop 82, he was very careful to *not* say that he opposed the objective of the initiative. He said only that he opposed it because of the taxes. The $50 million Weintraub mentions is only part of it. I also saw language in the Bond Measure for schools, talking about transfer of existing school properties for preschool purposes.
Here's the text from the May revise:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
P.37
Targeted Preschool Initiative
The May Revision proposes $50 million Proposition 98 General Fund for the first phase of a $145 million expansion for 4-year olds from low-income families residing in school districts in the lowest three deciles of the Academic Performance Index. This expansion will also include quality reforms designed to promote family literacy. Research demonstrates that children from low-income families benefit the most from access to quality preschool. The expansion will be phased in over a three-year period, which will allow school districts to address facility needs and to build capacity by hiring new teachers.
In addition, the May Revision provides an increase of $50 million one-time Proposition 98 General Fund in the Child Care Facilities Revolving Fund to address facility needs for the preschool expansion.
National trendsetter? No, more like a national babysitting service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.