Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

California Proposition 82, Free Half-Day Public Preschool Program Initiative (June 2006)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 82
Flag of California.png
Election date
June 6, 2006
Topic
Education and Taxes
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Amendment
& Statute		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 82 was on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute in California on June 6, 2006. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported a free, voluntary, half-day public preschool program available to all four-year olds funded by a 1.7% tax on individual incomes above $400,000.

A "no" vote opposed a free, voluntary, half-day public preschool program available to all four-year olds funded by a 1.7% tax on individual incomes above $400,000.


Election results

California Proposition 82

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 1,958,243 39.21%

Defeated No

3,036,283 60.79%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Measure design

If Proposition 82 had been approved, it would have created a free, voluntary, half-day public preschool program available to all 4-year olds. To pay for the program, the State of California would have imposed an additional 1.7% income tax on individuals earning over $400,000 annually, and to couples earning over $800,000 annually.[1]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 82 was as follows:

“Preschool Education. Tax on Incomes Over $400,000 for Individuals; $800,000 for Couples. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Establishes a right to voluntary preschool for all four-year old children.

• Funded by a 1.7% tax on individual incomes above $400,000; $800,000 for couples.

• Administered by the state Superintendent of Public Instruction and county school superintendents.

• Directs counties to prepare reports on curricula, outreach, facilities, childcare coordination, budgeting, teacher recruitment and pay.

• Limits administrative expenses; requires program audits.

• Requires state Superintendent to develop a preschool teaching credential with financial aid for credential students.

• Excludes revenue from appropriation limits, Proposition 98 calculations.		”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

If Proposition 82 had been approved, it would have added three entirely new sections to three different articles of the California Constitution.

Specifically, it would have:

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]

“
  • Increased state revenues of about $2.1 billion in 2007–08, growing annually with the economy to around $2.6 billion in 2010–11, when the preschool program would be open to all 4-year olds in the state.
  • Revenues would be used solely for new state preschool program and would be spent to run the program, pay for facilities, train teachers, and provide an operating reserve.[2]
 ”

Support

Supporters

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 82 were signed by Barbara E. Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association; Steve Krull, president of California Police Chiefs Association; and Edward Condon, executive director of the California Head Start Association:[1]

“

IMPROVE OUR SCHOOLS. VOTE YES ON 82—PRESCHOOL FOR ALL. California’s teachers say Prop. 82:

  • Strengthens elementary and K–12 education
  • Provides a high-quality preschool education for every four-year old in California
  • Helps more children learn to read by the third grade
  • Increases parental involvement and allows parents to choose preschools
  • Helps reduce dropout rates so more kids graduate high school
  • Reduces crime by keeping kids off the street and out of trouble
  • Invests in a better-educated workforce for a stronger economy
  • Expands teacher training and recruitment
  • Protects taxpayers with strict financial controls

CALIFORNIA’S TEACHERS SAY PROP. 82 IMPROVES EDUCATION BY HELPING CHILDREN LEARN TO READ. Studies show that children who go to preschool are more likely to be able to read by the third grade and therefore, more likely to succeed in school. That’s because children who know how to read by third grade can use their reading skills to learn faster in their other classes. Right now, only one in five children in California goes to a quality preschool program, and California ranks 45th out of 50 states in reading.

PROP. 82 PROVIDES ACCESS TO A QUALITY, VOLUNTARY PRESCHOOL FOR ALL FOUR-YEAR OLDS. By providing preschools that teach children earlier, when their brains are developing rapidly, and making sure parents are involved, teachers say Prop. 82 will help more children learn to read and give all our kids a chance to succeed. That’s why California’s teachers, including preschool teachers, kindergarten teachers, elementary school teachers, and more than 300,000 local classroom teachers say vote YES on 82.

CALIFORNIA’S POLICE CHIEFS SAY PROP. 82 HELPS CUT CRIME. Today, nearly one out of three children in California drops out of school. But studies show that preschool can help kids stay in school and stay out of trouble with crime, drugs, and gangs. That’s why the California Police Chiefs Association says Yes on 82.

PROTECT CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS Prop. 82 has no cost for 99.4% of California taxpayers. With strict financial accountability safeguards, Prop. 82 puts taxpayers in control.

  • Establishes a dedicated preschool fund that can only be spent to provide preschool
  • Requires annual independent audits
  • Provides for criminal penalties for misuse of funds, including possible jail time

INVEST IN OUR CHILDREN AND OUR FUTURE For every dollar we invest in preschool, studies show we get more money back—from savings on reduced remedial education, lower dropout rates, and the economic benefits of a better-educated workforce. Better-educated children get better jobs, and a better-educated workforce strengthens California’s economy for the future. That’s why business leaders, the Los Angeles and San Francisco Chambers of Commerce, the California Teachers Association, the California Head Start Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the Congress of California Seniors, Republicans and Democrats, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Education Secretary Dick Riordan, and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein say vote Yes on 82. www.Yeson82.com.

YES on 82 —INVEST IN OUR CHILDREN. IMPROVE OUR SCHOOLS.[2]

”


Opposition

Opponents

  • Dr. Tom Bogetich, Retired Executive Director, California State Board of Education[1]
  • Pamela Zell Rigg, President, California Montessori Council[1]
  • Patricia Armanini, Third Grade Teacher, San Rafael[1]
  • Larry McCarthy, President, California Taxpayers Association[1]
  • Thomas L. Sipes, Director, Montessori Schools of Petaluma[1]
  • Chris Simmons, 2003 Teacher of the Year, Glendale Unified School District[1]

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 82 were signed by Dr. Tom Bogetich, retired executive director of the California State Board of Education; Pamela Zell Rigg, president of California Montessori Council; and Patricia Armanini, third grade teacher, San Rafael:[1]

“

The question before us 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 Proposition 82 is flawed and a bad deal for our children and for California. Here’s why: THE STATE HAS MANY OTHER PRESSING NEEDS THAT SHOULD COME FIRST, LIKE FIXING K–12 SCHOOLS

  • California still faces chronic budget deficits. We shouldn’t create an expensive and inefficient new preschool bureaucracy that locks in $2.4 billion per year in new spending.
  • $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
    • 150 miles of new freeway lanes to ease traffi c congestion; or
    • Healthcare for nearly 2.4 million uninsured children and adults.

'We all support expanding preschool, but Proposition 82 is the wrong approach. We have more pressing needs for that money, like improving K–12 schools.' 

—Denise Lyon, Second Grade Teacher, Elk Grove

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR LITTLE GAIN IN ENROLLMENT

  • According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst and a study by the RAND Corporation, approximately 65%

of preschool age children in California already attend preschool. Proposition 82 supporters admit this measure will only increase enrollment to 70%. That’s $2.4 billion in NEW TAXES every year for a mere 4% to 5% increase in enrollment.

  • The Legislative Analyst predicts this program will cost as much as $8,000 per student per year for a part-time, three-hour per day program. That’s almost as much as we currently spend for full-day instruction for K–12

students!

NEW PRESCHOOL BUREAUCRACY MODELED AFTER TROUBLED K–12 SYSTEM

  • Where does the money go? Tens of millions of dollars will be spent on a huge, expanded state bureaucracy,

administration, and overhead—the same education bureaucracy that runs our current K–12 system.

LEGISLATURE COULD RAISE INCOME OR SALES TAXES OR IMPOSE A 'PARENT TAX' IF COSTS GO UP

  • This new program could cost much more than $2.4 billion per year. When has government ever come in under

budget?

  • When that happens or when tax revenues fall short, there’s a hidden provision in the fine print of Proposition

82 that allows the state to assess a fee on parents—a new 'PARENT TAX.'

  • Proposition 82 could force the Legislature to raise taxes on all of us if the revenues aren’t enough.

NO ON PROPOSITION 82:

  • We can’t afford a new $2.4 billion preschool bureaucracy when California has other pressing needs, like fixing

K–12 schools.

  • There are better ways to expand preschool, without spending so much money.

Please join us in voting NO on Proposition 82.[2]

”


Path to the ballot

Clipboard48.png
See also: California signature requirements

Proposition 82 got on the ballot through a paid petition drive conducted by Kimball Petition Management. As an initiated constitutional amendment, 598,105 qualifying signatures were required. The total paid to Kimball Petition Management for the petition drive was $1,616,569.[4]

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

2006 Measures

California

News and analysis


External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed March 23, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Follow the Money, "Donors to 'Yes on 82'", accessed March 23, 2021
  4. ↑ Cal-Access, "Yes on 82 expenditures," accessed March 23, 2021
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_82,_Free_Half-Day_Public_Preschool_Program_Initiative_(June_2006)&oldid=9011361"