Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's look at some Newspaper recommendations... <a href="http://tracypress.com/voice/2006-05-31-our-voice.php" target="_blank">http://tracypress.com/voice/20 06-05-31-our-voice.php</a> <a href="http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060531/OPINION01/605310331/1014/OPINION" target="_blank">http://www.visaliatimesdelta.c om/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060531/OPINION01/605310331/1014/OPINION</a> >>Proposition 82 would allow the state to spend $2.4 billion on early schooling. The money could fund programs already in place or be used by school districts to start their own. As it is, 65 percent of fourth-graders are already in preschool. Proposition 82 would raise that percentage to 70 percent. For any number of reasons — child care, logistics, school readiness, learning potential —nearly a third of 4-year-olds will not attend preschool anyway. The state of California is not prepared to enact mandatory attendance, even if that were recommended. The bottom line: Those who want and need preschool are already getting it. Well-off families can afford it (it often replaces even more expensive child care). Poor families can receive preschool through Head Start or other state and federal programs. Proposition 82 would benefit only a small percentage of families who can afford preschool anyway. If Californians believe education is underfunded, do something about that. Don't add more expense and program that isn't necessary.<< <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-122211" target="_blank">http://www.examiner.com/a-1222 11</a>%7ENo_on_82__wrong_fix_for_preschool.html >>California has already seen repeated demonstrations that using emotional voter referendums to divide a finite annual budget is bad for the state. Every general-fund dollar mandated to a good cause such as education or improving the highways means a dollar is snatched away from other good causes such as creating more group housing to keep mentally ill indigents off the streets or repairing fragile flood-control levees. Vote no on Prop. 82.<< >>“…even if we conceded the importance of preschool, this initiative is badly designed…It would transform California's existing, mostly private system, which already covers about 66 percent of preschool-age students, into a bureaucratic, mostly state-run system that would cover 70 percent of preschool-age students.†Marysville Appeal-Democrat, Editorial, May 26, 2006<< <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-preschool21may21" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/pr intedition/opinion/la-ed-preschool21may21</a>,1,609749.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true >>"No on Proposition 82: Universal preschool is too expensive, too bureuacratic, and could harm K-12" “Universal preschool, like world peace or thoughtful television, is a worthy goal. But Proposition 82, the initiative on the June 6… is so poorly designed that it could do more harm than good. Californians should vote no on Proposition 82. The initiative would set up a cumbersome bureaucracy and place it under the state Department of Education, which has done a disappointing job with K-12 schools. It would make taxpayer-funded preschool available to middle-class and rich families, which can easily afford it. It could worsen the teacher shortage by draining public schools of qualified teachers. And though the initiative allows private preschools to become part of the system, it's written in such a way to favor programs at public schools.†Los Angeles Times, Editorial, May 21, 2006<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.noprop82.org/" target="_blank">http://www.noprop82.org/</a> >>Proposition 82 is a Misuse of Limited State Resources The state has many other pressing needs that should come first, like fixing K-12 schools. The question before voters in June is not whether expanded preschool would bring benefits to our kids, but whether California can afford to spend $2.4 billion in scarce resources on a new preschool bureaucracy that will only increase enrollment by four or five percent. A broad coalition of K-12 and preschool teachers, educators, minority groups, seniors, taxpayer groups and businesses have studied this proposal and concluded that the state has many other pressing needs that should come first, like fixing K-12 schools. $2.4 billion could fund: 69,000 new K-12 teachers to address our teacher shortage; or 1,200,000 computers for K-12 classrooms; or 3,300 new classrooms to ease overcrowding and reduce class sizes AND modernization of 13,300 rundown classrooms in need of repair; or $8,400 worth of textbooks and supplies for each K-12 classroom in California, EVERY YEAR; or 150 miles of new freeway lanes to ease traffic congestion; or Healthcare for nearly 2.4 million uninsured children and adults. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I think it is poorly written, forces kids to a half-day program, when many parents need the full day so the parent can work, and is a lot of money just for a few percentage points. This will also be a boon to many higher-income folks, as they will get FREE pre-school. Should we look into helping getting more kids into pre-school, sure, but lets use the current private system, instead of making this another massive government bureaucracy!
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I talked about this months ago here at LP, I tried to find the thread.. I will try again....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Found the old thread, let me post a couple of major points I posted a few months ago... My main concern, using tax dollars to tell folks to pay more taxes, and looks like many folks agree with me. As for pre-school, I am for it, and think there should be an expansion to help kids from low-income families to attend, BUT not for every kid in California, no matter their income.... <a href="http://www.vvdailypress.com/20" target="_blank">http://www.vvdailypress.com/20</a> 06/114174202667688.html >>So the marginal cost, as economists call it, of adding those 22,000 extra kids would be $109,000 per child. That's because that 66 percent of children already in preschool — using private money — would start receiving taxpayer subsidies that they don't now receive. Quite frankly, this is just silly — and a massive waste of taxpayer money. No wonder on Feb. 28 Senate President Don Perata, D-Oakland, withdrew his support for the initiative. "Upon reflection, I believe Prop. 82 would become yet another obstacle impending prudent governance of the state," he said in a letter to Mr. Reiner. Prop. 82 also would vastly increase bureaucracy. "It's a disaster," said Lisa Snell, Reason's director of education and author of the study. She explained that the initiative would put the operation of most preschools — public and private — under the control of county school superintendents — even as the superintendents would themselves be operating their own public preschools. So the superintendents might be tempted to reduce competition by being stingy in granting approvals for private preschools. Moreover, the study found, Prop. 82 "would potentially subject all preschool providers to collective bargaining and take the personnel decisions away from preschool directors and owners." And it would mandate a bachelor's degree and a credential in early childhood education, which currently is not required to teach preschool. What a boon that would be for the teachers' unions. An incredible new expense and more bureaucracy are the essence of Prop. 82. On this one, it's too bad Mr. Reiner didn't stifle himself.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is a link to the actual letter the Democratic California Senate Leader sent to Rob Reiner... <a href="http://www.stopreiner.org/pdf/" target="_blank">http://www.stopreiner.org/pdf/</a> 02-28-06_Perata_Letter_to_Reiner.pdf Reading Sen. Perata's letter brings up some good points. One major one, the new program only provides a half-day, what does this do to working parents who can't pick up their kid at lunch? Another point, it has unknown conflicts with Head Start, that shows the proposition was poorly written, also, there are many other unanswered questions, including what happens to Community based groups that currently provide this service... Plus many more problems, you should go read the letter Sen. Perata wrote.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/</a> editorial/feature.html?id=110008026 >>The state has been here before, as a new report from economist Arthur Laffer reminds us. In the early 1990s under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, the state raised its top income-tax rate to 11%, triggering one of the worst fiscal crises in the state's history. Tax revenue fell as high-income people fled the state, while public debt exploded. That tax surcharge was removed in 1995, but now the state's politicians want to do it all over again. Ironically, Mr. Reiner sometimes seems to understand the reverse supply-side impact of his tax policies. Last November a coalition of liberal health groups proposed raising the tobacco tax yet again to pay for more public subsidies. Mr. Reiner opposed that increase by arguing that the higher cigarette tax would cost $35 million in revenues because smokers would buy cigarettes out of state. But he refuses to acknowledge that steep income-tax rates also affect taxpayer behavior, as high-skilled high-earners look for better opportunities out of state.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/content/</a> news/education/v-print/story/14223762p-15048687c.html >>Here are some excerpts of state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata's interview with the The Bee Capitol Bureau. Among other things, he talked about revelations that the state First 5 Commission possibly spent tax dollars for campaign purposes and about the FBI inquiry into whether he received outside income for legislative work. Q: Is this whole (preschool) issue raising red flags for you, or do you think it's being used for politics? A: I think it's a legitimate concern. In November, I commented to my staff, 'How can they get away with that?' I think was the way I put it. ... You know, it wasn't even cleverly disguised. It was just blatant. And I didn't know then and I still don't know how that happened, how was it allowed to happen? Who played a role in that? But it's flagrant. If I did that, they'd have me by (my) thumbs. If any politician did that. So, you know, it is very troubling to me. Twenty-three million dollars is what I was told. I mean, you could do a lot of creative and important things for children for $23 million.<< >>Q: Do you support the preschool initiative as it stands? A: I have been, and I'm in the process right now of reviewing my position. But it wasn't because of that (advertising issue). Q: It wasn't? Why? A: I've had more time to analyze this now. And we've had the (Legislative Analyst's Office) look at it. And I think there are some flaws there that are I think fatal. ... There's no means test, and so it looks to me like it would be really a boon for middle-to upper-middle-class families, though it would not serve equally - it would not provide equal access. There's no mandate in there for county superintendents to use anything other than school districts, and if you come from a community like mine, where community-based organizations - or what economists call NGOs - they provide a huge swath of social and health care services. ... So that's another flaw. Spending $8,000 for three hours is more than some school districts' K-12 can spend for an entire day. And, I mean, the list kind of goes on, unfortunately.<<
Originally Posted By jonvn We send our kids to pre-school, and it's good for them. SO, if this fails, and it means other kids won't have the same advantage, then good. Because I would rather my kids have any advantage that others do not. So I'm voting no.
Originally Posted By woody I already voted no via absentee ballot. The funding is completely flawed. Higher taxes is WRONG WRONG WRONG. And I'm not convinced pre-school is necessary for most kids.
Originally Posted By jonvn Excellent, Woody. I'm very happy to see that you're making the correct choice for my kids.
Originally Posted By berol What I've always heard is by first grade, non-preschoolers catch up to preschoolers, can't tell the difference. Props 81 was slightly on the yes side lat month. In a new Field poll, Prop 82 is going down 46-41%, 13% undecided. If all it did was finance a raising of the Headstart threshhold, I bet it would have passed.
Originally Posted By jonvn I believe it has been shown that kids that go to pre-school end up doing better in school all the way through. Here is just one article on it: <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20020329eci6.asp" target="_blank">http://www.post-gazette.com/lo calnews/20020329eci6.asp</a>
Originally Posted By berol The focus on that study, or at least on what they reported, is too narrow. Tho, it does suggest that Headstart is a great idea. I've noticed other studies say things like "preschooled kids are more likely to go to college" without taking into account that parents who can afford preschool are more likely to be able to afford college.
Originally Posted By wendebird >>What I've always heard is by first grade, non-preschoolers catch up to preschoolers, can't tell the difference.<< If I can add on to that, my oldest did attend pre-school. Two years actually. They taught her to trace the letters. Not how to form letters. When it came time for K, she had to learn all over again how to form her letters correctly. She got absolutely no head start from pre-school. I could have & should have done a better job of it myself, in a loving home environment. Needless to say, my youngest didn't go to pre-school & I already voted no on Prop 82.
Originally Posted By stagemomx3 My children stayed in our loving home environment for preschool as well. In my opinion that offered I much better advantage to them. Of course I now intend to give them the same environment for middle school so perhaps I'm a little biased.
Originally Posted By jonvn On the whole, pre-school does help kids. You do have to go to a good pre-school, though. It helps them socially, and it helps them with discipline. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/27/BAG8AGTL0E1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/27/BAG8AGTL0E1.DTL</a> study after study shows that it is beneficial. Which is why I voted NO.
Originally Posted By wendebird >>My children stayed in our loving home environment for preschool as well. In my opinion that offered I much better advantage to them. Of course I now intend to give them the same environment for middle school so perhaps I'm a little biased. << Stagemom, my kids are still at home with me. I'm in my 5th year of homeschooling now.
