Prop 82
OK, so I spent most of yesterday afternoon reading the California Official Voter Information Guide. Tuesday is our primary election day. I must admit that it was refreshing to find only two propositions on the ballot this time around. One of them, Proposition 82, is generating a lot of heat, and it probably should. It establishes voluntary preschool education for four-year olds.
Like universal kindergarten, the program will cost Californians a lot of money, probably in the billions, but most educational experts agree that in the long run it will save society billions more. It appears that we can spend a lot now, or spend more later.
The proposed funding mechanism is the controversial part, and yet it is the part which isn't discussed in polite company. From the Voter Guide:
The proposition establishes a new personal income tax (PIT) rate on high-income earners to support the new preshool program. The measure would impose an additional 1.7 percent tax rate on taxable incomes over:
Individuals---$400,000.
Heads-ofhouseholds---$544.457.
Married couples---$800,000.
Early in the campaign, Prop 82 looked like a slam-dunk, but after a lot of bombardment, the measure is now slipping, and may very well be defeated. The reasons given in the ads and mailings over the past several weeks are the same old tired canards used whenever the big-money people feel abused: big government will only screw it up. Today, in the NY Times, op-ed columnist David Brooks weighed in on the issue, and used one old canard to make his point.
Prop 82 starts with a true and noble premise: that the world would be better off if more children had access to preschool. If there is one thing we know from research and common sense, it is that if you take a kid from a disorganized home in a stressful neighborhood, where nobody is reading bedtime stories and where the vocabulary in daily use is small, and you put that kid in a quality preschool with books, stability and conversation, the results can be impressive.
That kid is more likely to be able to recognize numbers and letters, more likely to be able to predict events in a storybook, more likely to do better on vocabulary tests. Moreover, because the kid will be in a structured environment, he or she is more likely to develop social skills and self-control.
Experts disagree over how long these preschool effects last, but 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.
The problem with Prop 82 is that it seems to have been devised under the supposition that it takes a bureaucratic megalopolis to raise a child.
Furthermore, the initiative would hand control of this centralized program to the same bureaucracy that is already doing a mediocre job with the state's K-12 programs. It would create the same stultifying certification process that keeps good people out of schools. It would create the same special-interest rigidities that make the current education system so difficult to reform. [Emphasis added]
Let me begin by saying that I have no objection to Mr. Brooks weighing in on the issue. Education initiatives are of interest to the entire country, not just California. What I object to is his snark in dealing with the issue. First of all, the comment that we air-headed Californians believe that "it takes a bureaucratic megalopolis to raise a child" is such a blatant slap at Hillary Clinton and to the idea that parents depend on society to assist in the inculcation of societal values that it takes my breath away.
Second, while Mr. Brooks ostensibly agrees with the research that shows pre-school provides children (all children, not just the disadvantaged) with the tools necessary to succeed in school and in life, he feels the proposition is ill-conceived because it will involve the same bureaucracy that provides a mediocre education for the rest of the academic experience.
Hello? Maybe if children were better prepared for the educational experience, the system wouldn't be so mediocre. Further, is Mr. Brooks willing to extend his argument to include a fight against all monies for public education because it will only result in mediocrity? Maybe he would make the same argument to suggest that universal kindergarten is a waste of money. Or that public education is a fraud, so why spend tax dollars on it.
Brooks' little essay smacks of elitism. And he managed all of that verbiage without once referring to the fact that it is the elites who would have to actually give back to the society that allows for their incomes. I suppose that is amazing in and of itself, but for the fact that it is so abysmal.
I am reminded of the words of a noted American philosopher:
"What a maroon!"
Like universal kindergarten, the program will cost Californians a lot of money, probably in the billions, but most educational experts agree that in the long run it will save society billions more. It appears that we can spend a lot now, or spend more later.
The proposed funding mechanism is the controversial part, and yet it is the part which isn't discussed in polite company. From the Voter Guide:
The proposition establishes a new personal income tax (PIT) rate on high-income earners to support the new preshool program. The measure would impose an additional 1.7 percent tax rate on taxable incomes over:
Individuals---$400,000.
Heads-ofhouseholds---$544.457.
Married couples---$800,000.
Early in the campaign, Prop 82 looked like a slam-dunk, but after a lot of bombardment, the measure is now slipping, and may very well be defeated. The reasons given in the ads and mailings over the past several weeks are the same old tired canards used whenever the big-money people feel abused: big government will only screw it up. Today, in the NY Times, op-ed columnist David Brooks weighed in on the issue, and used one old canard to make his point.
Prop 82 starts with a true and noble premise: that the world would be better off if more children had access to preschool. If there is one thing we know from research and common sense, it is that if you take a kid from a disorganized home in a stressful neighborhood, where nobody is reading bedtime stories and where the vocabulary in daily use is small, and you put that kid in a quality preschool with books, stability and conversation, the results can be impressive.
That kid is more likely to be able to recognize numbers and letters, more likely to be able to predict events in a storybook, more likely to do better on vocabulary tests. Moreover, because the kid will be in a structured environment, he or she is more likely to develop social skills and self-control.
Experts disagree over how long these preschool effects last, but 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.
The problem with Prop 82 is that it seems to have been devised under the supposition that it takes a bureaucratic megalopolis to raise a child.
Furthermore, the initiative would hand control of this centralized program to the same bureaucracy that is already doing a mediocre job with the state's K-12 programs. It would create the same stultifying certification process that keeps good people out of schools. It would create the same special-interest rigidities that make the current education system so difficult to reform. [Emphasis added]
Let me begin by saying that I have no objection to Mr. Brooks weighing in on the issue. Education initiatives are of interest to the entire country, not just California. What I object to is his snark in dealing with the issue. First of all, the comment that we air-headed Californians believe that "it takes a bureaucratic megalopolis to raise a child" is such a blatant slap at Hillary Clinton and to the idea that parents depend on society to assist in the inculcation of societal values that it takes my breath away.
Second, while Mr. Brooks ostensibly agrees with the research that shows pre-school provides children (all children, not just the disadvantaged) with the tools necessary to succeed in school and in life, he feels the proposition is ill-conceived because it will involve the same bureaucracy that provides a mediocre education for the rest of the academic experience.
Hello? Maybe if children were better prepared for the educational experience, the system wouldn't be so mediocre. Further, is Mr. Brooks willing to extend his argument to include a fight against all monies for public education because it will only result in mediocrity? Maybe he would make the same argument to suggest that universal kindergarten is a waste of money. Or that public education is a fraud, so why spend tax dollars on it.
Brooks' little essay smacks of elitism. And he managed all of that verbiage without once referring to the fact that it is the elites who would have to actually give back to the society that allows for their incomes. I suppose that is amazing in and of itself, but for the fact that it is so abysmal.
I am reminded of the words of a noted American philosopher:
"What a maroon!"
posted by Diane at 10:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home