No on Proposition 82

Prop 82, sounds good......free preschool! But it is only for 4 year olds. It is for only 3 hours a day. 1 teacher (that must have a BA in Early Childhood plus the other classes needed, CPR & first aid, classroom management and more) with 1 assistant for 20 kids. I bet the pay will be low.

We really need to put our money/focus towards K-12. I have been teaching Montessori preschool too long to even think this is near a good idea. Please read about this proposition. My Montessori teacher is on the board against Prop.82.

Here are the web sites to check out: http://www.smartvoter.org
http://noprop82.org

I have done no research but the California Teachers Association wants this prop how can this be if it is not good for the students or teachers.

On the surface it is serving the underserved community of families that can't afford preschool. 80% of kids who don't have preschool is their ad (just played on TV).

Again I haven't researched, but if the teachers want it, it is their program, what could be wrong? They never opt to underpay themselves from the beginning of a program.

65% of kids that fit this age group already are attending some type of preschool. If this law passes it will only up to 70% I think. I have heard that grade school teachers support it because they think it will help their future students. The money would be better spent on their classrooms/schools/books.......

My friend saw a bumper sticker and all it said on it was: Just Say No.

I agree with that bumper sticker.

Thanks for the input, Julie and Joe. I too saw the TV commercial and it sounded like a good idea to me. I will have to research all the props more.

I did the research and here is the statistic quoted the most:

80% of the kids that don't/can't attend preschool will now have that option. Good enough for me. Lets get them as soon as possible. This is the most underserved group: poverty children. Who could be against that. Only affluent children need preschool? Are we protecting a franchise or something?

The teachers want it, and if you are right that it will make their job easier, again what is the downside.

There was a feature in the SF Chron (Tues May 30th, front page). More details: Teachers presently make around $27k and the preshcool quality is very uneven. With prop 82, pay will be equivalent to other public teachers (k-grade 12) scale which averages $60k year and standardizes the preschool criteria.

It is volunteer program for the 35% of preschoolers that don't have the option. I still don't see the downside.

"Montessori schools will be most likely shut out from participation and it will affect them", according to the article. The opposition is protecting the people who will be taxed for the program, California's top wage earners or other private businesses that would be negatively affected.

I am a permanent absentee voter. Anyone know if we can just drop these off at any polling place?

Yes, I know you can at least take it to the local place but I am sure any place will take it. All you do is slip it into the box.

Thanks, Joe! I looked on their website and in the packet that they mailed to me, but there was no info whatsoever, other than mailing to the Registrar's office.

I am a big fan of teachers. I came from a family of them including my sister, brother-in-law, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, great-grandfather... (My father says "Insanity runs in some families, teaching runs in ours"). But, I am no fan of teacher's unions. They are looking after the interests of the teachers, which can be a good thing, but they are not necessairily looking after the interests of the students or the community as a whole. If this will raise the pay for the teachers and add more members to the teacher's union, then it will be recommended by the unions. The question that we need to ask is whether this is a good way to spend our government's money. The estimates that I have seen is that it will at 4 to 8 % more kids to preschool, but for a shorter day. I'm not sure this is a step forwared, particularly given the cost.

This post has been edited by dkrahl on Jun 1 2006, 12:42 PM

We just got a recorded call from the CTA (CA Teacher's Assoc.) asking us to join 450,000 teachers in voting yes on 82. I work at a school and the CTA hasn't asked any teachers there for their opinion. The CTA is in favor of 82, but that doesn't mean that teachers are. So far, every teacher that Julie and I have talked to about this have been very much against it. The Yes on 82 campaign is using the CTA's backing to full advantage by saying things like, "Join CA teachers . . ." near the top of their ads. Then readers trust them. I would too if I wasn't in the business.

There are 5 kindergarten classes in the building where I work. When I first asked these teachers what they thought about universal preschool, Prop. 82, they loved the idea. Who wouldn't want more kids in preschool?

These teachers are now some of the most vocal opponents of it. Prop 82 does not provide the kind of student preparation they are looking for. Unfortunately, 82 is missing the essence of preschool education.

Our K-8 school has NONE of the extracuriclular activities that I took for granted as a kid. Provide these programs first. Poor reading skills are not the only reason kids drop out.

The Council of Concerned Women Voters say to vote NO on Prop. 82.

Prop. 82 is the wrong approach. Don't create a new $2.4 billion bureaucracy for just a 4% increase in enrollment. Money raised thru new taxes would be better spent improving existing classrooms and hiring more teachers. Vote NO on 82.

I couldn't find the Council on the internet.

They have no position on Prop. 81.

This post has been edited by mobyfan on Jun 3 2006, 02:04 PM

My Democrat Voter Guide says YES on Prop. 81.

Proposition 81 helps strengthen K-12 education. The California PTA, League of Women Voters, and California Congress of Seniors say VOTE YES ON PROP. 81.

They also say VOTE NO ON PROP. 82.

Let's fix K-12 first before creating a new $2.4 billion bureaucracy for just 4% more enrollment. And if the money falls short, politicians could force parents to pay the difference. www.NoProp82.org

Note: These recommendations were prepared by voter information guide, not an official political party organization. These two particular recommendations were paid for by the ballot measures.

The San Francisco Chronicle is recommending that people vote No or Prop. 82. You can view the editorial here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDGDOIJLC41.DTL


The San Jose Mercury News is also recommending that people vote No on Prop. 82. Here's the editorial:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ns/14577793.htm

The Merc's editorial ends with this statement:
"California's 4-year-olds deserve quality preschool programs. Unfortunately, on the whole, Proposition 82 is the wrong approach to reach that desirable objective."


****
Both newspapers, by the way, support Prop 81. Editorials can be found by clicking the links below:

San Jose Mercury News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ns/14535158.htm

San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDGNSGU2ST1.DTL

More on Prop 82 from columnist David Brooks of The New York Times! It appears in a column entitled, "Good Intentions, Bad Policy." Those of you without a New York Times subscription will be unable to access with column, so I'll quote an excerpt from it here:

"...the bulk of the evidence suggests that disadvantaged kids enrolled in quality preschools have a better shot at graduating from high school and avoiding prison. As a result, many scholars have concluded that money spent on preschool more than pays for itself over time.

...Instead of focusing on those in need, the initiative would create a vast, universal program, displacing much of what now exists. Currently, 65 percent of the state's 4-year-olds are in preschool. Under the plan, the state would assume the costs of those kids, and try to increase total preschool enrollment to just over 70 percent.

In other words, roughly three-quarters of the program's funds would go toward kids who are already in preschool."

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/opini...4brooks.html?hp

He encourages people to defeat this legislation and re-write it to benefit at-risk kids with a program that includes assistance/training to parents of these children.