His push to get more money from smokers has been so successful that actor/director Rob Reiner is going after the limousine liberals (and conservatives) in his quest for universal preschool (link goes to Education Beat's main website; this story is not yet online):
After meeting with legislative leaders to sell his plan for universal preschool last week, actor Rob Reiner is ready to file his initiative for title and summary with the attorney general's office. Sources close to Reiner say the initiative will likely be on the June 2006 ballot. The initiative seeks to raise about $2 billion annually to pay for universal preschool programs for California's pre-kindergartners. To pay for the programs, the initiative will propose a new income tax on couples making more than $800,000 per year, or individuals who make more than $450,000 per year...Reiner abandoned an earlier preschool initiative that would have boosted the commercial property tax to pay for the new programs. That initiative was co-sponsored by the California Teachers Association, but was tabled before it was ever filed to the AG's office. The CTA is not officially backing the new Reiner proposal as of yet, according to a Reiner spokesman.
My guess is the new initiative goes hand-in-hand with recent studies:
Universal preschool for California's 4-year-olds would bring about $2.62 in benefits for every dollar spent, greatly reducing special education needs, juvenile arrests and the number of children held back a grade, a Rand Corp. study concludes. The report released Tuesday also said a high-quality preschool program would create a more qualified, internationally competitive workforce and foster economic growth. Though other studies have explored the benefits of preschool programs for disadvantaged youngsters, the Rand report is the first to provide a detailed cost analysis for universal preschool in California open to all children without regard to income.
I'm of two minds. Universal preschool sounds like something that could be desperately necessary in some impoverished areas. On the other hand, I wonder how much freedom families will have to opt out of the program, should they choose to. I also wonder how much of the ineffective "progressive" educational theories will filter down to this level. Such a program may be cost-effective if it works, but I'd like to hear more about what's actually going to be taught.
Update: Illuminaria's Voice has scads more on the topic:
...it may very well be that the only children who would benefit from universal preschool would be high risk children who currently do not attend preschool. If we use their assumptions on how many children would enroll in the universal preschool, we see that even though the universal preschool plan would mean that twice as many California 4 year olds would be in public preschool (35% to 70%), the overall rate of preschool attendance would only raise from 65% to 80%. Almost 70% of the new children enrolled in public preschools would be low risk children, most of them moved over from private preschools. Only 5.82% of California 4 year olds would be the high risk children not currently enrolled in preschool that the program would help the most. Instead of doubling costs, costs could be increased by 15% in order to make preschool available for more high risk children.Posted by kswygert at April 18, 2005 05:52 PMI certainly agree that putting more high risk children who don’t get stimulation and learning at home into preschool would help break the cycle of poverty. But I see no reason, even with this study, to make universal preschool available.