LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Universal preschool/education again loom large

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Education again looms large in this year’s legislative session. And while parents, school officials, teachers and, yes, even legislators, should be concerned with education—California ranks 48th in the nation for education excellence—the reality is that every year legislators introduce hundreds of new bills affecting schools that micromanage education by dictating how and what teachers can teach in their classrooms, what policies school boards must adopt and other Sacramento-driven mandates.

In the meantime, the quality of California’s education continues to fall and when student achievement fails to measure up—exceeding only that of Louisiana and Mississippi—legislators are the first ones to blame teachers, rather than themselves.

This year is no exception. The following two bills are designed to radically alter the primary purpose of education in this state.

AB 171 Comprehensive pupil learning support system (Yee, D-San Francisco)

AB 171 creates a learning system that includes “braiding” education and social services into a single system in order for students to be better learners, “good parents, good neighbors, good workers and good citizens of the world.” The bill requires teachers to address a wide range of student problems, including social, emotional, intellectual and behavioral development “within the context of the classroom.” It includes expanding before-, during- and after-school programs, as well as providing transitional support in moving students from “postschool living and work.”

Inconsistent approach
AB 171 is a broad, comprehensive plan that is so fraught with inconsistencies and problems it is hard to know where to begin; the bill’s lofty goals lack any concept of reality. First of all, the bill claims that it will accomplish its comprehensive system “through existing resources.” The implication is that there will be no additional cost to taxpayers. Even a brief overview of the bill’s requirements for new standards, realignments, interventions, procedures and training—including an ongoing recruitment, training, and monitoring program for volunteers—is mind-boggling. The cost of coordinating any such system and the bureaucracy required to ensure any cohesiveness cannot be achieved with “existing resources.” It will require increased bureaucracy, increased staffing, and, of course, increased funding.

This might be a good time to remind readers that California spends almost $50 billion per year on education in this state (with an additional $2.9 billion increase planned this year). However, the classroom deficits of which teachers complain are real. The problem is that so much money allocated to schools is spent on the state Department of Education, “consultants,” and any number of non-academic-focused programs—not academics.

Burden to teachers
But, beyond the cost, the much bigger problem with AB 171 is that it forces classroom teachers to take on additional responsibilities for which they are neither trained nor qualified. This ongoing effort to solve all of society’s problems by turning classrooms into experimental laboratories and children into experimental lab rats defies common sense.

Teachers enter the teaching profession because they want to educate children. But AB 171 is just another governmental boondoggle that would turn schools and teachers into social-service monitors. It would decrease classroom time for actual academics and place an extraordinary onus on teachers to provide mental, social and health monitoring of their students.

A well-educated populace benefits not only the individual, but also society as a whole. If legislators want to reduce poverty and enhance the lives of those living in California, then they must stop trying to force their own agenda on local schools, teachers, parents and students. It is time they allow teachers to educate, local districts to make local decisions and parents to have a greater say in the education of their own children!

Universal preschool
The second bill is part of an ongoing effort to create a universal preschool system in California. It is a companion bill to AB 171 in that its “standards and guidelines” and the overall control of the proposed system falls under the direction of the state Department of Education.

AB 172 Universal preschool (Chan, Oakland)
AB 172 is a four-page outline restating the Legislature’s intent to create a statewide universal preschool system based on several bills that were sidelined last year. The bill states that California should offer a state-funded preschool system for all families regardless of income. This system is to be based on public school standards, will pay preschool teachers at the same rate as public school teachers, connect families to a variety of other resources including health care, and integrate preschool with “full-time daycare as seamlessly as possible.”

While it is a laudable goal to improve the education quality for all children, universal preschool is not the way to do it. As Ron Prentice, executive director of California Family Council said, “It should be troubling to California’s taxpayers that legislators believe the best way to improve California’s public system of education is to take children from their homes at a younger age. Improving the present system, without expanding the bureaucracy of the state’s Department of Education, is most critical.”

Underestimated costs?
At this point, the plan calls for “voluntary” participation of students but mandates that all school districts offer universal preschool that includes health and mental health screening beginning at birth. The original bills introduced last year claimed that the proposed preschool would cost $3,600 per pupil per 180-day session. However, Texas is also considering universal preschool and estimates the cost at $10,000 per pupil, while the Packard Foundation—strong supporters of universal preschool—estimate the cost between $6,000 and $12,000 per pupil.

California doesn’t spend that much on public education on a per-pupil basis. Can taxpayers afford such a wide disparity in estimated costs? And is it fair to ask average- and low-income families to finance preschool that includes the children of families that can well afford any private preschool, daycare or other education facility they desire?

Stay tuned for this one, folks; it promises to be another battle for the protection of children and families. This and other issues will continue to be discussed in this column.

Karen Holgate is director of Legislative Affairs for California Family Alliance. CFA is a not-for-profit lobby promoting family, religious, and business friendly legislation and is affiliated with California Family Council.

Published, March 2005

Christian Examiner™, P.O. Box 2606 El Cajon, CA 92021 • 619-668-5100 • Fax 619-668-1115
Email: info@christianexaminer.com • Web site: www.christianexaminer.com